NationStates Jolt Archive

You know what we need here? Spike strips, lots of spike strips

They both are investigating. I do know that the US is investigating the incident. Italy is involved so I'm pretty positive that they are investigating too.
looks like you are rigth...

You know what we need here? Spike strips, lots of spike strips

Spike strips don't really slow a speeding vehicle. They are good for keeping someone from leaving the area quickly, but are not an effective barricade.

There are other barrier devices (such as one that blows a thin mylar sheet all over the car so the driver can't see shit and crashes).

Hint to intel operatives: You know you have to drive slow at US checkpoints. Kick the driver out of the car and drive the car yourself.

looks like you are rigth...
March 7, 2005

The Italian government paid up to $US6 million for the release of kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Iraq, the Milan-based Corriere della Sera reported, citing a senior Iraqi politician.

Italian media also reported Italian state prosecutors had launched a manslaughter investigation into the fatal shooting by US troops of Italian agent Nicola Calipari which occurred as Sgrena was taken to Baghdad airport following her release.
...
The ransom payment could also have led to "misunderstandings" between US troops and the Italian secret service as the US military was strictly against ransom payments, the Turin-based La Stampa said, alluding to the fatal shooting of Calipari.

The 52-year-old agent was killed as he tried to shield the 56-year-old journalist from gunfire by US troops attempting to stop their car en route to Baghdad airport.

It's quite obvious that the Italian woman and her terrorist./communist handlers set this up. It's ham-handed attempt to smear the USA, which the lefties are falling for hook line and sinker. How many different stories can she concoct about the same incident?

I don't think paranoid theories of a worldwide communist conspiracy are of much help here ... you must have missed the last 15 years. If you do want to carry this to the conspiracies though, we can start with the 1-dollar note if you like ...

March 7, 2005

The Italian government paid up to $US6 million for the release of kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Iraq, the Milan-based Corriere della Sera reported, citing a senior Iraqi politician.

Italian media also reported Italian state prosecutors had launched a manslaughter investigation into the fatal shooting by US troops of Italian agent Nicola Calipari which occurred as Sgrena was taken to Baghdad airport following her release.
...
The ransom payment could also have led to "misunderstandings" between US troops and the Italian secret service as the US military was strictly against ransom payments, the Turin-based La Stampa said, alluding to the fatal shooting of Calipari.

The 52-year-old agent was killed as he tried to shield the 56-year-old journalist from gunfire by US troops attempting to stop their car en route to Baghdad airport.


Hint to conspiracy theorists:

It's not possible to tell whose car it is, or who is in the car, at night. So how, with a car going 50 to 60 kph (at the least) is every US troop on the street supposed to know that's her, and try and nail her?

She was on the floorboards of the car, and he was on top of her. Both were out of sight completely. So, do Americans all have X-Ray vision?

Take the hash pipe out of your mouth, please...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617569

How strange that the US had a different opinion on things

"CONFLICTING VERSIONS

There are some glaring discrepancies in the Italian and American versions of the killing of the agent Nicola Calipari and the wounding of released hostage Giuliana Sgrena and two other Italian secret service agents:

The Americans say: the car was travelling at high speed
The Italians say: it was travelling at 40-50kph

US: It approached a checkpoint near the airport at speed when soldiers fired on it to force it to stop as a "last resort"
Italy: It had passed three checkpoints without incident and was 700 metres from the airport when fired upon

US: The soldiers used hand signals and bright lights and fired warning shots before hitting the car with shots
Italy: There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour

US: There was a lack of co-ordination between the Italians and the Americans
Italy: The Americans were kept fully informed

US: It was a regrettable accident which will be aggressively investigated
Italy: Ms Sgrena claims it was a deliberate ambush to kill her, as the Italians had paid a ransom, a practice America opposes, and as she had learnt inconvenient facts from her abductors. "

I honestly don't know who to believe but whatevers going is some foul play going on between allies here. And to be fair I don't know what would be worse, whether Italy or the US leaders are being mis-leading

Perhaps if this sort of thing, involving US troops and the deaths of innocent people, did not happen on such a regular basis, people wouldn't be so disgusted by it.

never mind..

The death and wounding of the Italians was tragic, especially so considering the circumstances, ie: just been released from hostage situation.

That they were shot by Americans is all the more tragic.

The whole situation is a nightmare though, check points are set up at random positions with nobody being given notice of where they are, for very good reason. Allied forces and contractors drive like a bat out of hell most of the time, because they're less likely to take fire from insurgents that way. Allied soldiers swing torches about to let people know that they're coming up to a check point at night and to make them slow down... unfortunately so do insurgents too, so as to trick people and to then kill them or kidnap them. Accidents just waiting to happen, but it doesn't make it any better. :(

It's another tragedy in a tragic war, which never had to happen, still it doesn't help much being able to rationalise it, does it? Instead it just makes America look worse...

March 7, 2005

The Italian government paid up to $US6 million for the release of kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Iraq, the Milan-based Corriere della Sera reported, citing a senior Iraqi politician.

And if anyone pays a ramson to a terrorist, they are not helping the situation.

Italian media also reported Italian state prosecutors had launched a manslaughter investigation into the fatal shooting by US troops of Italian agent Nicola Calipari which occurred as Sgrena was taken to Baghdad airport following her release.

Minor problem! The Italians don't have jurisdiction. They can investigate and they can turn over what they learn to the JAG (Judge Advocate General). The JAG has to make the decision to prosecute or not. At least they are investigating though. But is the Italian Military investigating. It doesn't state if they are or not. This is really a military matter and not a civilian one.
...
The ransom payment could also have led to "misunderstandings" between US troops and the Italian secret service as the US military was strictly against ransom payments, the Turin-based La Stampa said, alluding to the fatal shooting of Calipari.

Anyone pays a ransom to a terrorist is a fool.

The 52-year-old agent was killed as he tried to shield the 56-year-old journalist from gunfire by US troops attempting to stop their car en route to Baghdad airport.

Shouldn't have been speeding. I ain't happy that he was killed but I also have to look at the soldiers viewpoint. Speeding Car that didn't slow down when signaled too? I would've shot too.

I honestly don't know who to believe but whatevers going is some foul play going on between allies here. And to be fair I don't know what would be worse, whether Italy or the US leaders are being mis-leading

What is more likely:

a) that there was a conspiracy to kill her (in this case, every US troop in the theater of operations would have to be in on it)
or,
b) her driver was stupid, and the Americans at the first few checkpoints exercised some restraint - and the last checkpoint fired at the car because the car continued to speed and ignore signals.
or,
c) everyone involved in this was stupid

I vote for b or c, because I find that the stupidest explanation that counts on the stupidity of human beings is always the most accurate explanation. Anything that relies on thousands of people to keep their mouths shut is automatically a bunch of crap.

I vote for b or c, because I find that the stupidest explanation that counts on the stupidity of human beings is always the most accurate explanation. Anything that relies on thousands of people to keep their mouths shut is automatically a bunch of crap.

I agree.

Oh yes, and you are the rabid attack ... of Zeppistan. The truth doesnt hurt, friendly fire is simply a function of the reality of things in a difficult situation. Surely you are not so ignorant to believe this is the only case of friendly fire? Friendly fire(and this event doesnt even rise to that definition) has been a part of all wars fought by ALL countries. There does not exist a modern war where soldiers weren't killed by their own forces by mistake. What one needs to consider is the number/percentage of these deaths. If you bother to check, friendly fire is down significantly in the US since Vietnam(where it was rampant)

Um, if you fire on someone on your own side, even if you didn't know, than it is "freindly" fire.
Yes, freindly fire exist, but does this mean you must celebrate or defend it?
Clinton's bombing on bosnia didn't lose us any "freindly" soldiers. Infact, none of the US soldiers got killed. So you are misinformed or wose lying when you say : "There does not exist a modern war where soldiers weren't killed by their own forces by mistake"
Because laddie, one exists and it was done by the last democrat(moderate some say, but eh) President. I guess Democrats are beter at not losing members to freindly fire?


Yet, you persist in insinuating that something like this is unique or even relevant. When I say friendly fire BTW, I am refering to soldiers in uniform being shot by other soldiers in the same uniform/team by mistake.
This story doesnt even rise to that occasion. Lets see, a speeding car appraoching a checkpoint in a war zone. Perhaps they should have slowed down, maybe they would be alive then.

What I dont understand is Zeppistan's view because he appears to be somewhat objective despite his biases.

So freidly fire to you must be on same team...
So if I fight a war with Britain against Germany and I kill Britain soldiers... it isn't Freindly fire?

Wow, you sure can change everything when you change the definitions.

And if anyone pays a ramson to a terrorist, they are not helping the situation.
Minor problem! The Italians don't have jurisdiction. They can investigate and they can turn over what they learn to the JAG (Judge Advocate General). The JAG has to make the decision to prosecute or not. At least they are investigating though. But is the Italian Military investigating. It doesn't state if they are or not. This is really a military matter and not a civilian one.
...
Anyone pays a ransom to a terrorist is a fool.
Shouldn't have been speeding. I ain't happy that he was killed but I also have to look at the soldiers viewpoint. Speeding Car that didn't slow down when signaled too? I would've shot too.

What Italy decides to do with ransoms is their own choice, they decided to pay it, what happened to human life being priceless, but its too easy to say either way.

The Italian government has stated that the car was going at 40 - 50 kmph(20 - 25 mph). Now I don't know the speed limit in Iraq but come on this is not a great speed

What is more likely:

a) that there was a conspiracy to kill her (in this case, every US troop in the theater of operations would have to be in on it)


why would every US troop have to be in on it? Not being a military person myself I don't see why everyone would have to know

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617569

How strange that the US had a different opinion on things


US: It was a regrettable accident which will be aggressively investigated
Italy: Ms Sgrena claims it was a deliberate ambush to kill her, as the Italians had paid a ransom, a practice America opposes, and as she had learnt inconvenient facts from her abductors. "


I love Ms Sgrena's belief. It makes no sense. If this were the case, I would think that the US would have had a team completely wipe them out so that the world would have thought that negoitating with terrorist does not work.

Or at a minimum, made sure she had been eliminated.

Also, For hundreds of shell casings to be in the car, The shots would have to have been fired in the car. Shell casings are the residue from firing rouds and are ejected only a very short distance from the gun.

a) that there was a conspiracy to kill her (in this case, every US troop in the theater of operations would have to be in on it)
.

I don't think it's true, but why would every US troop have to be in on it? If it was a conspiracy surely the persons planning it would just tell the troops that they wanted to do the killing (the guards at a single check point for instance) that the vehicle would contain a terrorist, not the whole Army.

On the conspiracy side of things I'd be more interested in hearing why the seats of the car were then covered with spent cartridges. That seems more suspicious to me, placing cartridges in a vehicle as some form of evidence to back up the soldiers actions maybe...

What Italy decides to do with ransoms is their own choice, they decided to pay it, what happened to human life being priceless, but its too easy to say either way.

The Italian government has stated that the car was going at 40 - 50 kmph(20 - 25 mph). Now I don't know the speed limit in Iraq but come on this is not a great speed

Even the people in the car can't agree on how fast they were going. Fast and slow.

The important word at checkpoints, however is "HALT!"

Which is substantially slower than 40 to 50 kph.

Rules of engagement are in writing. I feel that the first few checkpoints (who let the car pass) probably exercised considerable restraint, and may have violated orders. To keep the car moving after being waved at from multiple checkpoints to stop, makes me think the driver was just plain stupid.

Maybe he should get a Darwin award.

What Italy decides to do with ransoms is their own choice, they decided to pay it, what happened to human life being priceless, but its too easy to say either way.

Negotiating with terrorists is asking for trouble.

The Italian government has stated that the car was going at 40 - 50 kmph(20 - 25 mph). Now I don't know the speed limit in Iraq but come on this is not a great speed

We will have to wait for the conclusions of the investigation.

why would every US troop have to be in on it? Not being a military person myself I don't see why everyone would have to know

Having been in the Army, I can tell you:
1) No one can keep their mouth shut. Put the order out, and by nightfall, everyone in the area, including people who aren't soldiers, will know what's going on. We couldn't keep the plans to move a nuclear missile in Germany secret - the locals knew we were going to move the missile before I got the order myself.

2) Checkpoints in an area are usually manned by the same unit, usually rotating people in and out on a schedule. You would have to know when she was coming back, what route she was taking, and know who was going to be on guard when that happened (if you wanted to have a very small group of people do it).

Additionally, the officers in that unit, and probably all of the senior NCOs would have to be in on it - because they would ask a lot of questions of the people doing the shooting.

Everyone would know. Everyone. I can guarantee you that people at home here would know as well.

That, and if they ordered them dead, they would have finished them off rather than take them to the hospital.

Rather than console yourself with fanciful and highly improbable conspiracies, have faith in the general stupidity of mankind.

Having been in the Army, I can tell you:
1) No one can keep their mouth shut. Put the order out, and by nightfall, everyone in the area, including people who aren't soldiers, will know what's going on. We couldn't keep the plans to move a nuclear missile in Germany secret - the locals knew we were going to move the missile before I got the order myself.

2) Checkpoints in an area are usually manned by the same unit, usually rotating people in and out on a schedule. You would have to know when she was coming back, what route she was taking, and know who was going to be on guard when that happened (if you wanted to have a very small group of people do it).

Additionally, the officers in that unit, and probably all of the senior NCOs would have to be in on it - because they would ask a lot of questions of the people doing the shooting.

Everyone would know. Everyone. I can guarantee you that people at home here would know as well.

That, and if they ordered them dead, they would have finished them off rather than take them to the hospital.

Rather than console yourself with fanciful and highly improbable conspiracies, have faith in the general stupidity of mankind.

As I said I dunno who to believe, I'm not a big fan of conspiricy theories and I just wanted to know how difficult it would be to pull off.

ty for the info :)

why would every US troop have to be in on it? Not being a military person myself I don't see why everyone would have to know
If the US wanted to kill her...they would nly need 2 snipers...having everyone "know about it" is not how they do assasination.

If the US wanted to kill her...they would nly need 2 snipers...having everyone "know about it" is not how they do assasination.

One sniper. One observer.

If the US wanted to kill her...they would nly need 2 snipers...having everyone "know about it" is not how they do assasination.

It does seem strange that a tank was used when 2 snipers would have been enough

I just wanted to know how difficult it would be to pull off.
Its very easy.
remember Kennedy?

only somewhat difficult when you want to assasinate someone who is expecting it...and has means to protect himself.

It does seem strange that a tank was used when 2 snipers would have been enough

It only takes one sniper.

And, if they had wanted them dead, the tank would have fired the main gun, instead of a machinegun.

A 120mm HE shell would have blown the car into a million pieces, and you would have only found the journalist's left rear pants pocket.

Still think it's a conspiracy?

Its very easy.It is easy and very Cheap...
the only problem is "moral issues"

Still think it's a conspiracy?

My problem is the lack of conisistency and the reason behind it. Conspiracy? I dunno but from whats been printed it doesn't look all that likely

It is easy and very Cheap...
the only problem is "moral issues"

Stop quoting yourself.

If we wanted them all dead, they would've all been dead. We didn't want anyone dead. The people in that car were lucky that only one was killed.

Its very easy.
remember Kennedy?

only somewhat difficult when you want to assasinate someone who is expecting it...and has means to protect himself.

Kennedy was shot from a distance of (maximum) 85 yards. He was not shot by a trained sniper. The average Marine could do that - and Oswald was a less than average Marine.

The average military sniper can hit a head sized target at 300 yards, and has a good chance to hit out to 1200 yards (further, if the rifle caliber is 300 Mag, 338 Lapua, or .50 BMG). A friend recently hit an insurgent at 1614 meters with a McMillan in .50 BMG.

You can't protect yourself from a sniper if he is able to get within range. You can't wear enough body armor, and you can't move fast enough. You would have to spend all of your time inside a building with no windows, or inside an armored vehicle. If you went outside, even for a few seconds, and there was a sniper within range trying to kill you, you would be dead.

Its very easy.
remember Kennedy?

only somewhat difficult when you want to assasinate someone who is expecting it...and has means to protect himself.

I'm still not convinced with Kennedy, or at least who was involved in said "conspiracy"

Shouldn't have been speeding. I ain't happy that he was killed but I also have to look at the soldiers viewpoint. Speeding Car that didn't slow down when signaled too? I would've shot too

OK so let think about it. Your driving down a road at 30 mph, thats how fast your allowed to go in my town.
You hear bullets they could be the Americans or Terrorists.
Who would you think it was, I'd think Terrorists not my own team.
Now what would you do, stop and let them fire on you or try to get away as fast as you can.
I wonder how many people could tell the difference between a AK-47 or a M-16
I wouldnt have a clue and really if anyone fired on my car or anybodys car for that matter I would not stay put I'd run

OK so let think about it. Your driving down a road at 30 mph thats how fast your aloud to go in my town. You hear bullets they could be the Americans or Terrorists. Who would you think it was I'd think Terrorists. Now what would you do stop and let them fire on you or try to get away as fast as you can.
I wonder how many people could tell the difference between a AK-47 or a M-16

The Americans were waving flashlights at them. Do you suppose the driver was blind, or was he merely stupid?

OK so let think about it. Your driving down a road at 30 mph thats how fast your aloud to go in my town. You hear bullets they could be the Americans or Terrorists. Who would you think it was I'd think Terrorists. Now what would you do stop and let them fire on you or try to get away as fast as you can.
I wonder how many people could tell the difference between a AK-47 or a M-16

Your forgetting that this was a checkpoint in a warzone. If I saw a light, I would slow down. If I saw hand signals telling me to stop, I would stop. When I stopped, I would Identify myself with ID and whatever else they require. If they have to check back at HQ, fine. I wouldn't complain.

At checkpoints, you do as they instruct otherwise, it'll get very very ugly.

Any one could wave a flash light it could be terrorists, maybe they should have stopped but at night its very hard to see who a load of people with guns are. I hardly think they were shining the torches at there uniform.

Any one could wave a flash light it could be terrorists, maybe they should have stopped but at night its very hard to see who a load of people with guns are. I hardly think they were shining the torches at there uniform.

Anyone familiar with driving around there should have known about the roadblocks (which force you to swerve and slow down) and at some point, it's rather hard to miss the US uniforms and tanks.

It sounds like gross stupidity to me.

I'm still not convinced with Kennedy, or at least who was involved ....
I dont know...
all I know is I was not involved.

I also know I was not involved with the killing of the Italian...
as a matter of fact Im not involved in any war....Thanks God.

Any one could wave a flash light it could be terrorists, maybe they should have stopped but at night its very hard to see who a load of people with guns are. I hardly think they were shining the torches at there uniform.

You are completely correct, at night it is hard to see. So, the soldiers on duty tried to get the vehicle to stop with signals. The car ignores the signals and keeps going toward the position. Since it is hard to see, they dont know if it is loaded with explosives or terrorists with Machine guns. They they fire on the vehicle untill it stops. (If .50 caliber guns puored hundreds of rounds into that vehicle, there would be nothing left.)

Should the soldiers have let a vehicle just keep coming to them when Car bombs are the norm?

I dont know...
all I know is I was not involved.

I also know I was not involved with the killing of the Italian...
as a matter of fact Im not involved in any war....Thanks God.

What country do you live in? We'll be the ones who determine whether or not you're involved in any war.

Should the soldiers have let a vehicle just keep coming to them when Car bombs are the norm?maybe they should have done the same other soldiers did at the previous Checkpoints...

What do I know?...i was not even there...

All I know is the "official" version of the Pentagon...and to my eyes..they dont have much credibility.

when Car bombs are the norm?

All I know is that it was a crap operation and should have been given more thought on the Americans side. And maybe they should think of another way to make checkpoints mor effective.

Um, if you fire on someone on your own side, even if you didn't know, than it is "freindly" fire.
Yes, freindly fire exist, but does this mean you must celebrate or defend it?
Clinton's bombing on bosnia didn't lose us any "freindly" soldiers. Infact, none of the US soldiers got killed. So you are misinformed or wose lying when you say : "There does not exist a modern war where soldiers weren't killed by their own forces by mistake".

Well, actually bosnia was not a US war. No war was declared by the USA; we were supporting a UN sec council resolution. I realize this is a bit silly in light of the fact that vietnam wasn't "really" a war (not declared) nor was korea or...you get my drift. But the point I refute is equally nonsensical: find me a source that says the bosnian conflict was without any incident of friendly fire among the ground forces.
Or don't bother trying, as it will be impossible.

maybe they should have done the same other soldiers did at the previous Checkpoints...

Were there other checkpoints?

What do I know?...i was not even there...

All I know is the "official" version of the Pentagon...and to my eyes..they dont have much credibility.

Its being investigated by the US and by Italy.

What country do you live in? We'll be the ones who determine whether or not you're involved in any war.Im not a "Parrot"...I mean Im not a "Patriot"...so even If the Prez declares war on the Klingons...I am not going to fight his War.

sue me. :D

Well, actually bosnia was not a US war. No war was declared by the USA; we were supporting a UN sec council resolution. I realize this is a bit silly in light of the fact that vietnam wasn't "really" a war (not declared) nor was korea or...you get my drift. But the point I refute is equally nonsensical: find me a source that says the bosnian conflict was without any incident of friendly fire among the ground forces.
Or don't bother trying, as it will be impossible.

Bosnia didn't have a UN Resolution. It was done by NATO not the UN! China blocked it from being done by the UN.

she belives she was shot at deliberatly because she is reporter for the italian communist newspaper , and also becaue it is well known americans hate negotiating with terrorists

Im not a "Parrot"...I mean Im not a "Patriot"...so even If the Prez declares war on the Klingons...I am not going to fight his War.

sue me. :D

Well, if you pay taxes, you bought bullets for the US. Good job!

typical us attitude. She's a commie as well, i bet they spefically targeted her.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE :)

Yes but that is not your direct fault. If you chose to buy bullets for the US you would be apatriot but you cannot help it if someone else does it with money given to them.

Well, actually bosnia was not a US war. No war was declared by the USA; we were supporting a UN sec council resolution. I realize this is a bit silly in light of the fact that vietnam wasn't "really" a war (not declared) nor was korea or...you get my drift. But the point I refute is equally nonsensical: find me a source that says the bosnian conflict was without any incident of friendly fire among the ground forces.
Or don't bother trying, as it will be impossible.

You were right...

Top of the list on "friendly fire bosnia" search on google is:

this link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/boardofinquiry.html)

Well, if you pay taxes, you bought bullets for the US. Good job!
yeah well, life is a Biach sometimes.

typical us attitude. She's a commie as well, i bet they spefically targeted her.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE :)

If they wanted to target her, why did they take her to the hospital?

All I know is that it was a crap operation and should have been given more thought on the Americans side. And maybe they should think of another way to make checkpoints mor effective.

I concur, the operation was crap. Coordination should have been complete. I would even go so far as to say the US may not have paid real close attention because the operation is in direct conflict with its beliefs on negotiating with terrorists.

But I will also say that big giant tanks with lots of guns and Humvees with .50s on top should motivate any sane person to stop in their tracks. I have driven a M1 and I will tell you, it is really big.

I concur, the operation was crap. Coordination should have been complete. I would even go so far as to say the US may not have paid real close attention because the operation is in direct conflict with its beliefs on negotiating with terrorists.

But I will also say that big giant tanks with lots of guns and Humvees with .50s on top should motivate any sane person to stop in their tracks. I have driven a M1 and I will tell you, it is really big.

Some of the people here are convinced that it was a conspiracy to kill her.

Mortimus, how many rounds of 120mm do you think it would take to destroy the typical civilian car (and its occupants)?

Some of the people here are convinced that it was a conspiracy to kill her.

Mortimus, how many rounds of 120mm do you think it would take to destroy the typical civilian car (and its occupants)?

1

and if you are wondering about accuracy, The M1 can hit a target while moving at 30 to 40 MPH with a 80% accuracy

After playing on black hawk down I would say about 20 .50 rounds would turn any car into scrap metal

and if you are wondering about accuracy, The M1 can hit a target while moving at 30 to 40 MPH with a 80% accuracy


I should qualify that I was talking about the M1 moving at 30 to 40.

In stationary mode ith hits 95% of the time

You know the Americans may be a bit over the top with guns but when they enter a war they bring the best

1

So if they really wanted her dead, they would have found one of the car's axles wrapped around the corner of a building, and the occupants of the vehicle all over the block in little bits?

Have I missed out on something

WHY do they want her dead
wouldnt that sever international relations between the USA and Italy and may I mention the leader of Italy admires America.

So if they really wanted her dead, they would have found one of the car's axles wrapped around the corner of a building, and the occupants of the vehicle all over the block in little bits?

Actually I am preplexed by this because they are saying that the car was hit by hundreds of rounds. I believe somone said it was .50 rounds. These are really large rounds and would have turned the car into swiss cheese. Every round would have entered and exited the car. So the wole story confuses me.

But yes if one round from the main gun hit that car, there would be nothing left

Maybe throughout the entire car there were a hundred holes going in and out.
.50 rounds would have destroyed the car pretty quickly.

Have I missed out on something

WHY do they want her dead
wouldnt that sever international relations between the USA and Italy and may I mention the leader of Italy admires America.


Does anyone think that the americans really wanted these people dead? Surely they just shot them because they were driving too fast near a checkpoint and so might have been a threat?

This is called "shoot first and ask questions later".

Actually I am preplexed by this because they are saying that the car was hit by hundreds of rounds. I believe somone said it was .50 rounds. These are really large rounds and would have turned the car into swiss cheese. Every round would have entered and exited the car. So the wole story confuses me.

But yes if one round from the main gun hit that car, there would be nothing left

Having actually used the M2 on cars, I can't understand it either.

I have the feeling that if "hundreds" of rounds hit the car, it was 5.56mm.

Otherwise, you get neat effects like the doors coming off the car, and when people inside are hit, huge chunks of them fly out in every direction like you're at a meat packing plant.

She wouldn't have survived being hit by a .50 round, either. Her description on NPR of the intel officer (who was laying on top of her trying to shield her) was that he was hit in the head, and then "he groaned" and she knew he was dying.

Well, if you get hit in the head with a .50 round, your whole head comes off, and everyone in the car gets to wear a piece. Kind of hard to miss when it happens, and there's nothing left to groan out of.

Well, if you get hit in the head with a .50 round, your whole head comes off, and everyone in the car gets to wear a piece. Kind of hard to miss when it happens, and there's nothing left to groan out of.
what it hits body armor?

But the quandry here is that the M1 is equiped with a 7.62 coaxial machine gun, not 5.56. So the only way 5.56 were fired on that would have been by the soldiers firing their M16 or if the had a Squad Assault Weapon.

what it hits body armor?

Body armor has no chance against a .50.

This bullet can go through 2 inches of Aluminum

what it hits body armor?

You get killed.

A .50 caliber round penetrates everything except the heavy armor on a tank.

It will go through most armored personnel carriers, especially the sides.

Even if you're behind a modern reinforced concrete building, such as a typical modern high rise, you aren't safe on the other side - you're safe as far as concealment goes - but you ARE NOT SAFE when the bullets come through the building where you are.

It is not a rifle round (although there are sniper rifles that can fire this round). It is a "heavy machinegun" round. Think of a small automatic cannon.

These bullets are so large, so heavy, and moving so fast that they can, on a torso hit, blow a person in half, or tear an arm, leg, or head completely off the body.

I've seen one hit from a .50 take a person off the top of a building - the bullet hit him in the abdomen - and the top half of his body flew off the building and left his legs standing there for a split second.

There isn't any way she was hit by a .50.

But the quandry here is that the M1 is equiped with a 7.62 coaxial machine gun, not 5.56. So the only way 5.56 were fired on that would have been by the soldiers firing their M16 or if the had a Squad Assault Weapon.

Well, if they fired the 240, I'm not sure how they would put "hundreds" of rounds into the car without killing everyone in it, either.

In other shocking news, the various media accounts of war activity are contradictory and inaccurate. The only sources of information here are the US military, which definitely has a history of creative correspondence, and a group of Italians who didn't like the war in the first place and then got shot - doesn't make for unbiased reporting on either side.

In other shocking news, the various media accounts of war activity are contradictory and inaccurate. The only sources of information here are the US military, which definitely has a history of creative correspondence, and a group of Italians who didn't like the war in the first place and then got shot - doesn't make for unbiased reporting on either side.

And guess what two groups will investigate it ?

Exactly. I guess I gave away my cynical nature on my first post. My cover is blown...