NationStates Jolt Archive


US clears coldblooded killers in Sgrena shooting

Pages : [1] 2
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 13:32
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. military investigation has cleared American troops of any wrongdoing in the shooting death last month of an Italian security agent in Baghdad, according to a senior Pentagon official.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/25/iraq.italian.decision/index.html

Is anyone realy suprised by this?
German Nightmare
26-04-2005, 13:36
No, not really. I pretty much anticipated something like this when I first heard of the shooting "incident".
Jeruselem
26-04-2005, 13:36
Nope. All normal! Americans are "Holier than thou" :)
Katganistan
26-04-2005, 13:38
:rolleyes:

Yes, imagine... racing past military vehicles who are patrolling a road and telling you to stop getting you shot.

Why, I just bet that if Americans in a civilian car did that in, oh, I dunno, Germany, or Israel, or gee, anywhere else in the world, there would have been a different outcome!

Gosh, those awful Americans....
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 13:56
Its tragic that people friendly to the US were killed/wounded. I hope it doesnt happen again.
I'm glad the soldiers who were doing their jobs were cleared. Otherwise, we would have men that hesitate and scumbags that take advantage of it. Next time, there might be suicide car bombers in the car, which are certainly more common than innocent, but ignorant people, speeding toward a manned checkpoint.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 13:58
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. military investigation has cleared American troops of any wrongdoing in the shooting death last month of an Italian security agent in Baghdad, according to a senior Pentagon official.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/25/iraq.italian.decision/index.html

Is anyone realy suprised by this?

No. If you're following the rules of engagement, which are written orders, then you're NEVER going to be found to be at fault.

I've followed rules of engagement when I was in the Army. Like most soldiers, I tended to err on the side of using force at the last possible moment - but when I used force, I used it.

Driving through a checkpoint when you're ignoring printed signs that say "STOP" in English and Arabic, ignoring the waving soldiers at three prior checkpoints (who were showing restraint and warning the next checkpoint that you're still not stopping), you've got to wonder what the driver was thinking. They very well could have riddled the car with bullets at the first checkpoint, and still been within the letter of the rules of engagement.

Considering the threat from car bombs that routinely blow up at checkpoints, I'm really surprised they didn't fire at the car at the first checkpoint. I certainly would have.
Isanyonehome
26-04-2005, 14:04
:rolleyes:

Yes, imagine... racing past military vehicles who are patrolling a road and telling you to stop getting you shot.

Why, I just bet that if Americans in a civilian car did that in, oh, I dunno, Germany, or Israel, or gee, anywhere else in the world, there would have been a different outcome!

Gosh, those awful Americans....

Well, dont forget. Because we are Americans we are expected to know beforehand information that comes to light only after an event takes place. God forbid we work with only the information that is available at the time.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 14:17
Well, dont forget. Because we are Americans we are expected to know beforehand information that comes to light only after an event takes place. God forbid we work with only the information that is available at the time.

Yes, like with those wmd in iraq...it was of course impossible to be sure... they might have been there... Stop crying!
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:17
Well, dont forget. Because we are Americans we are expected to know beforehand information that comes to light only after an event takes place. God forbid we work with only the information that is available at the time.
Yes, as we all know, US soldiers have those rifles from Eraser that can see through walls, cars, and clothing, so we know who is in the car by looking at their bones.

Ok. Von and Ein, I admit it - I ritually bathed in the blood of young German children just for the fun of it, just to fulfill my role as your oppressor.
German Nightmare
26-04-2005, 14:28
Yes, imagine... racing past military vehicles who are patrolling a road and telling you to stop getting you shot.
As far as I know the story, the car didn't race towards the control point, it didn't even speed...
Gosh, those awful Americans....
You said it and I'm not gonna disagree.

I ritually bathed in the blood of young German children just for the fun of it, just to fulfill my role as your oppressor.
Oh no you didn't! Otherwise I might feel compelled to ritually empty your body of all vital fluids and offer them to Khorne. Blood for the Blood God and skulls for His throne ;)
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 14:29
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. military investigation has cleared American troops of any wrongdoing in the shooting death last month of an Italian security agent in Baghdad, according to a senior Pentagon official.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/25/iraq.italian.decision/index.html

Is anyone realy suprised by this?

Hey Dummy, it was a joint US Italian investigation that cleared the soldiers....Note to self, when driving to an armed checkpoint in Iraq, slow down.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 14:30
I ritually bathed in the blood of young German children just for the fun of it.
You know. I believe you.
Isanyonehome
26-04-2005, 14:31
Yes, like with those wmd in iraq...it was of course impossible to be sure... they might have been there... Stop crying!


Its the Euro type that whine and cry, Americans actually go and do stuff.

Not to get into an Iraq war discussion, but all the information at the time said the WMD WERE there, not the least being Saddam and most of the world's intelligence agencies.

See, this is exactly the mentality I am talking about. We went with the best info at the time and people like still say "not good enough". For you I bet its never good enough until tons of people are already dead, at least that way you can be sure.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:32
You know. I believe you.
I knew you would. I'm fond of liver with fava beans and a nice chianti....
Layarteb
26-04-2005, 14:34
:rolleyes:

Yes, imagine... racing past military vehicles who are patrolling a road and telling you to stop getting you shot.

Why, I just bet that if Americans in a civilian car did that in, oh, I dunno, Germany, or Israel, or gee, anywhere else in the world, there would have been a different outcome!

Gosh, those awful Americans....

Valid point. It never ceases to amaze me how people CANNOT take any responsibility for their actions. When you blow through a checkpoint, expect to be fired upon, and then when you are, don't whine about it or the consequences afterwards. You got what you deserved. And none of this, "Well we didn't know they were friendly." That flag on the arm = friendly. It's a sad occurance, don't get me wrong, but they shouldn't have tried to run the checkpoint. If I were there I'd have thought they were coming with an IED or something and done the exact same thing.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 14:35
Its the Euro type that whine and cry, Americans actually go and do stuff.

Not to get into an Iraq war discussion, but all the information at the time said the WMD WERE there, not the least being Saddam and most of the world's intelligence agencies.

See, this is exactly the mentality I am talking about. We went with the best info at the time and people like still say "not good enough". For you I bet its never good enough until tons of people are already dead, at least that way you can be sure.

Well, you're sure now.

Best info at the time? What does that mean? I'll tell you, it means nothing.

'ok, we have no evidence but Zimon zays, that is the best info we have, let's go'?
German Nightmare
26-04-2005, 14:39
Its the Euro type that whine and cry, Americans actually go and do stuff.

Not to get into an Iraq war discussion, but all the information at the time said the WMD WERE there, not the least being Saddam and most of the world's intelligence agencies.

See, this is exactly the mentality I am talking about. We went with the best info at the time and people like still say "not good enough". For you I bet its never good enough until tons of people are already dead, at least that way you can be sure.

Actually, Europeans like to consider before they act. Americans shoot first and ask questions later, yeehaw!

The U.S. should of course know that Iraq had WMD - you were the ones who sold'em to them in the Iraq-Iran war!

And yes, if the information provided by the U.S. before the world is deemed "not good enough" then come up with more, valid information.

If I post stuff here, people always ask for sources and references - why not IRL?
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 14:39
Valid point. It never ceases to amaze me how people CANNOT take any responsibility for their actions.
They look to the Americans how it's done. Butchering harmless civilians and then blame the victims for their executioners actions.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:39
Well, you're sure now.

Best info at the time? What does that mean? I'll tell you, it means nothing.

'ok, we have no evidence but Zimon zays, that is the best info we have, let's go'?

The UN, UK, Russia, and the US agreed that the Iraqis had manufactured 1800 gallons of anthrax that was unaccounted for. The Iraqis refused to account for it, or allow inspectors to search particular locations to find it.

It's in the UN reports. They knew it was missing.

After we invaded, and captured Taha, the woman who ran the bioweapons programs in Iraq, we discovered that she had dumped it into a trench outside one of Saddam's palaces. Without telling Saddam of course - she would have been shot, as she had no authority to dump the stuff, nor did she have the authority to put it outside one of his palaces.

So in a comedy of errors, we all believed (erring on the side of caution) that the anthrax still existed. Taha knew it was already destroyed, and Saddam thought he still had it.

Only one way to sort that out, you know.
Isanyonehome
26-04-2005, 14:40
Well, you're sure now.

Best info at the time? What does that mean? I'll tell you, it means nothing.

'ok, we have no evidence but Zimon zays, that is the best info we have, let's go'?

What are you 10 yrs old? When it comes to terrorists, WMD and brutal dictators who like to gas his own people best info at the time is what you have to work with.

If everyone waited for the perfect info, nothing would ever get done.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 14:43
What are you 10 yrs old? When it comes to terrorists, WMD and brutal dictators who like to gas his own people best info at the time is what you have to work with.
Terrorists and brutal dictators who at some point were created/installed/supported by the US. You want a medal for that?
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:44
Terrorists and brutal dictators who at some point were created/installed/supported by the US. You want a medal for that?
Yes, we created him. And we cleaned up our mess, didn't we?

Or would you rather that we create people like Saddam, and let them run amok?
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 14:46
So in a comedy of errors, we all believed (erring on the side of caution) that the anthrax still existed. Taha knew it was already destroyed, and Saddam thought he still had it.

Only one way to sort that out, you know.

Some comedy. Such admirable caution!
Layarteb
26-04-2005, 14:47
They look to the Americans how it's done. Butchering harmless civilians and then blame the victims for their executioners actions.

Victim and harmless civilians refused to stop at checkpoint.

US soldiers screamed stop or we will shoot.

Victims and harmless civilians refused to stop.

US soldiers gave final warning.

Victims and harmless civilians refused to stop.

US soldiers acted in self-defense. Numerous scenarios like that have happened where it wasn't harmless civilians or victims but terrorists with IED and car bombs.

So yes, those soldiers are the bad guys for being scared to hell that they were going to die and acting within their own self-defense so they can see tomorrow.

I tell you what, when victims and harmless civilians are such, WHY DO THEY HAVE TO RUN A CHECKPOINT AND ACT IN A MANNER THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T VICTIMS OR HARMLESS CIVILIANS!
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:49
Some comedy. Such admirable caution!

1800 gallons of anthrax is more than enough to kill everyone on the planet, if it's dispersed in the air. The spores travel quite easily on the wind.

We're lucky that Taha knew how to kill the anthrax spores before she dumped it. Otherwise, she might have killed half the people in the Persian Gulf.

Such caution. What would you do if you believed (as everyone did) that 1800 gallons of anthrax was missing?
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 14:49
Valid point. It never ceases to amaze me how people CANNOT take any responsibility for their actions. When you blow through a checkpoint, expect to be fired upon, and then when you are, don't whine about it or the consequences afterwards. You got what you deserved. And none of this, "Well we didn't know they were friendly." That flag on the arm = friendly. It's a sad occurance, don't get me wrong, but they shouldn't have tried to run the checkpoint. If I were there I'd have thought they were coming with an IED or something and done the exact same thing.


Maybe we should ask them nicely to stop and fill out a questionaire-"Do you have any citrus fruit?" "Do you have any weapons?"

If the US were truly as evil and meanspirited as the originator of the thread wants us to beleive, the soldiers could have easily shot and killed everyone in the car, then buried the whole thing in the desert. Then we wouldnt be having this discussion. Or any hearings or investigations.
But thats not how we do things. The US is held to a much higher level of accountability than everyone else.
The soldiers that stopped this vehicle did their jobs, at a posting that is the main place US soldiers are being killed.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 14:50
What are you 10 yrs old? When it comes to terrorists, WMD and brutal dictators who like to gas his own people best info at the time is what you have to work with.

If everyone waited for the perfect info, nothing would ever get done.

:rolleyes: hmmm...death penalty en masse

Some things should never get done
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 14:51
Maybe we should ask them nicely to stop and fill out a questionaire-"Do you have any citrus fruit?" "Do you have any weapons?"

If the US were truly as evil and meanspirited as the originator of the thread wants us to beleive, the soldiers could have easily shot and killed everyone in the car, then buried the whole thing in the desert. Then we wouldnt be having this discussion. Or any hearings or investigations.
But thats not how we do things. The US is held to a much higher level of accountability than everyone else.
The soldiers that stopped this vehicle did their jobs, at a posting that is the main place US soldiers are being killed.

Indeed. If this was some sort of conspiracy, as some here seem to think, the Italians in question would simply have disappeared from the face of the earth without a trace.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 14:56
Such caution. What would you do if you believed (as everyone did) that 1800 gallons of anthrax was missing?

Find out where it was, rather than kill the last known holder. If you were so worried that the whole planet or the half the people in the Gulf would be killed, why did you attack in the first place? Not afraid that it'd be used as a weapon of last resort?

Have you asked mr Putin if he knows where all his nukes are?
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 14:56
Actually, Europeans like to consider before they act. Americans shoot first and ask questions later, yeehaw!



"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Keep considering. Make believe you're giving something great thought and compassion until the US takes care of it for you. Then save face by trying to portray us as cowboys. You're only fooling yourselves. And you're most upset that we dont care how you feel about it- we have the resolve to do what needs to be done IN SPITE of you.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 14:58
Yes, we created him. And we cleaned up our mess, didn't we?
So you do think you deserve a medal for that then?

Or would you rather that we create people like Saddam, and let them run amok?
Wether it's someone like Saddam or the US who's running amok. The outcome is the same.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:00
Indeed. If this was some sort of conspiracy, as some here seem to think, the Italians in question would simply have disappeared from the face of the earth without a trace.


And the terrorists that were holding her would have been to blame. No one would have bothered questioning this. This actually would have benefitted the US by galvanizing an ally.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:02
Find out where it was, rather than kill the last known holder. If you were so worried that the whole planet or the half the people in the Gulf would be killed, why did you attack in the first place? Not afraid that it'd be used as a weapon of last resort?

Have you asked mr Putin if he knows where all his nukes are?

We didn't kill the last known holder. She's alive and well, thank you. And very cooperative.

If you have 1800 gallons of anthrax, you can certainly spare a kilo or two to hand out to people you like. Considering that Salman Pak was used as a training ground for terrorists, and there was even an airliner parked there used for the purpose of practicing hijackings, it stands to reason that Saddam, in a more puerile moment, could hand the stuff to just about anyone.

Maybe not al-Qaeda, but he had plenty of Palestinian terrorists as close friends. Want to take the chance on that, after we've experienced 9-11?

Consider this - if we hadn't invaded - and we hadn't found out what happened to the anthrax - and if she hadn't destroyed it - and if Saddam gave it to someone and they used it - we would be in the interesting position of having known it was missing, but having done nothing to stop it. Politically, how do you think that would go down in a post-911 US? Want to say "political suicide for an entire party"?

It's one of those situations where you can't afford to be wrong - you can't afford the chance that they might do something really horrendous - because it will mean severe political repercussions - far worse than going to war.

As for Putin, yes, he knows where his nukes are. Even if you had one, they're PAL coded for limited try. Try the wrong code more than a few times, and the weapon is going to inert itself.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:03
So you do think you deserve a medal for that then?


Wether it's someone like Saddam or the US who's running amok. The outcome is the same.


I dont recall anyone asking for a medal. We arent as hung up on them as say-someone like you.

Your definition of "running amok" must be frightening. Iraqi people with clean drinking water,food ,jobs and schools-thats really running amok.
I guess anything that isnt labelled and in perfect order to you is "amok".
Demented Hamsters
26-04-2005, 15:04
:rolleyes:

Yes, imagine... racing past military vehicles who are patrolling a road and telling you to stop getting you shot.

Except for Giuliana Sgrena's testimony that the car wasn't speeding, stopped as soon as the driver saw a flashing light 10m away and there were no warning (cries, shots or otherwise). Just 15 seconds of sustained fire into the car.
But hey, why listen to her? She's Italian (a european for gods sake!).
Of course the soldiers would never lie and back each other up, making it their word against one womans.

Personally I think it was just a general cock-up on the part of the soldiers. Most likely one of them fired, probably accidently, and the rest joined in, which you would expect them to do. They are trained to do that. If one of them fires, the rest are hardly going to stand round and wait to see what happens before deciding to join in.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:04
So you do think you deserve a medal for that then?

Wether it's someone like Saddam or the US who's running amok. The outcome is the same.

No, we don't deserve a medal. But I don't see you giving the French any grief for acting unilaterally to invade a country without UN permission to clean up its messes.

Ivory Coast, for instance. Why aren't you saying, "The French are blood sucking monsters like the Americans!"

The outcome is not the same.
NianNorth
26-04-2005, 15:05
Victim and harmless civilians refused to stop at checkpoint.

US soldiers screamed stop or we will shoot.

Victims and harmless civilians refused to stop.

US soldiers gave final warning.

Victims and harmless civilians refused to stop.

US soldiers acted in self-defense. Numerous scenarios like that have happened where it wasn't harmless civilians or victims but terrorists with IED and car bombs.

So yes, those soldiers are the bad guys for being scared to hell that they were going to die and acting within their own self-defense so they can see tomorrow.

I tell you what, when victims and harmless civilians are such, WHY DO THEY HAVE TO RUN A CHECKPOINT AND ACT IN A MANNER THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T VICTIMS OR HARMLESS CIVILIANS!
Millitarry convoy drives down a road, all vehicles have UK air recognition markings on the roof. US aircraft engage UK vehicles, killing and wounding men on the ground, Radio from UK forces to US aircraft asing to cease attack. US aircraft attack convoy again, UK troops do not defend themselves or return fire, UK troops dies trying to rescue fellow soldiers burning to death in vehicles. Convoy was moving through an allied held area. Investigations.... No US troops found to be at fault or charged. Gulf war 1, more UK soldiers killed by the US than by Iraq. Can you blame the world for a bit of doubt?
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:07
Can you blame the world for a bit of doubt?

Are you saying that UK soldiers have never been involved in a friendly fire incident? Eh?
Isanyonehome
26-04-2005, 15:07
Terrorists and brutal dictators who at some point were created/installed/supported by the US. You want a medal for that?

Well, we certainly aided him a few decades earlier. Does America want a medal for aiding him and then later removing him? No, I dont think one is required, but thanx for offering. We are happy enough knowing we did the right thing.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:07
Personally I think it was just a general cock-up on the part of the soldiers. Most likely one of them fired, probably accidently, and the rest joined in, which you would expect them to do. They are trained to do that. If one of them fires, the rest are hardly going to stand round and wait to see what happens before deciding to join in.


What an absurd statement. You would expect them all to "join in"? They ARENT trained to do that. But thats the type of moronic statement you expect from someone who is not trained.
NianNorth
26-04-2005, 15:10
Are you saying that UK soldiers have never been involved in a friendly fire incident? Eh?NO. that is not up for discusion. The point is there were too many friendly fire incidents in the first conflict, none of which were found to be the fault of the US, or at least no one was taken to task. And in the Balkans, a missile attack on an Embassy!
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:11
No, we don't deserve a medal. But I don't see you giving the French any grief for acting unilaterally to invade a country without UN permission to clean up its messes.

Ivory Coast, for instance. Why aren't you saying, "The French are blood sucking monsters like the Americans!"

The outcome is not the same.
The French are there with a UN mandate. Unlike the bloodsucking American fiends they didn't invade the country under a guise of lies.
Plus they are our friends and allies.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:13
Are you saying that UK soldiers have never been involved in a friendly fire incident? Eh?
Sure. On the recieving end of the "friendly" Americans.
Isanyonehome
26-04-2005, 15:14
Find out where it was, rather than kill the last known holder. If you were so worried that the whole planet or the half the people in the Gulf would be killed, why did you attack in the first place? Not afraid that it'd be used as a weapon of last resort?

Have you asked mr Putin if he knows where all his nukes are?

We tried to find out, he didnt coperate fully with the inspectors. To me, thats a sign he is hiding. He thought he was hiding it.

And what more could we have done to find it without invading? So easy for you to say now .."Oh, you could have found it". By doing what? Calling in Phychics or using divining rods. How exactly do you think the real world works? It isnt a game of clue.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:14
We are happy enough knowing we did the right thing.
Just keep telling that to yourselves.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:15
NO. that is not up for discusion. The point is there were too many friendly fire incidents in the first conflict, none of which were found to be the fault of the US, or at least no one was taken to task. And in the Balkans, a missile attack on an Embassy!

Just asking. Because I was shot at by UK troops from a mech unit. Good thing they were using those cockup rifles, because I didn't get hit.

After I put one round on the open hatch of a Warrior vehicle, they got the hint that I wasn't an Iraqi.
SnowValley
26-04-2005, 15:15
Victim and harmless civilians refused to stop at checkpoint.

US soldiers screamed stop or we will shoot.

Victims and harmless civilians refused to stop.

US soldiers gave final warning.

Victims and harmless civilians refused to stop.

US soldiers acted in self-defense. Numerous scenarios like that have happened where it wasn't harmless civilians or victims but terrorists with IED and car bombs.

So yes, those soldiers are the bad guys for being scared to hell that they were going to die and acting within their own self-defense so they can see tomorrow.

I tell you what, when victims and harmless civilians are such, WHY DO THEY HAVE TO RUN A CHECKPOINT AND ACT IN A MANNER THAT MEANS THEY AREN'T VICTIMS OR HARMLESS CIVILIANS!


What he said!! :sniper: :mp5: :headbang:
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:16
Except for Giuliana Sgrena's testimony that the car wasn't speeding, stopped as soon as the driver saw a flashing light 10m away and there were no warning (cries, shots or otherwise). Just 15 seconds of sustained fire into the car.
But hey, why listen to her? She's Italian (a european for gods sake!).
Of course the soldiers would never lie and back each other up, making it their word against one womans.

Personally I think it was just a general cock-up on the part of the soldiers. Most likely one of them fired, probably accidently, and the rest joined in, which you would expect them to do. They are trained to do that. If one of them fires, the rest are hardly going to stand round and wait to see what happens before deciding to join in.

I'm sure somebody listened to her as the investigation was performed by US and Italian authorities. Hmm, a joint investigation that cleared the soldiers, my, what is the world coming to... The problem was that the Italians were paying ransom money to terrorists and neglected to inform the Americans.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 15:17
We tried to find out, he didnt coperate fully with the inspectors. To me, thats a sign he is hiding. He thought he was hiding it.

And what more could we have done to find it without invading? So easy for you to say now .."Oh, you could have found it". By doing what? Calling in Phychics or using divining rods. How exactly do you think the real world works? It isnt a game of clue.


Exactly. It is not a game of clue.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:18
I'm sure somebody listened to her as the investigation was performed by US and Italian authorities. Hmm, a joint investigation that cleared the soldiers, my, what is the world coming to... The problem was that the Italians were paying ransom money to terrorists and neglected to inform the Americans.
It's non of the US's business if a country decides to pay or not pay ransom for one of it's citizens.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 15:18
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. military investigation has cleared American troops of any wrongdoing in the shooting death last month of an Italian security agent in Baghdad, according to a senior Pentagon official.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/25/iraq.italian.decision/index.html

Is anyone realy suprised by this?
I talked with a friend about this and we both were not surprised about this outcome. It's just like asking Hitler if he did anything wrong, if he had been caught :p Americans time and time again excempt their soldiers and government officials from the rule of law and expect the rest of the world to dance to their tune and obey every command they mutter. This my friend is victor's justice in action and live - no surprise considering the supremacy with which US soldiers and many US people consider their own existence or presence elsewhere in the world... :rolleyes:
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:19
Just asking. Because I was shot at by UK troops from a mech unit. Good thing they were using those cockup rifles, because I didn't get hit.

After I put one round on the open hatch of a Warrior vehicle, they got the hint that I wasn't an Iraqi.

Later, they gave me a plaque for "Operation Granby", as a sort of going away present.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:21
It's non of the US's business if a country decides to pay or not pay ransom for one of it's citizens.

You're right, it's none of the American's business unless you're going to run a US checkpoint at a high rate of speed. If I was in the car, I'd have made sure they knew I was coming. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?
NianNorth
26-04-2005, 15:21
Just asking. Because I was shot at by UK troops from a mech unit. Good thing they were using those cockup rifles, because I didn't get hit.

After I put one round on the open hatch of a Warrior vehicle, they got the hint that I wasn't an Iraqi.
So you were in combats in a desert and were shot at? yep, and as every UK soldier has to account for every time he discharges his weapon and for rounds fired I'm sure he had to explain what he did to some one. Unlike the system you were under when you were out there.
This is not the same as an aircraft seeing a target and failing to verify from it's position of safety if the target is a threat or a friendly. Same as when US pilot shot down a UK helicopter (a chinook of all things) before they bothered seeing if it was a friendly. they appear to shoot anything not imediatly recognised as US. Oh yes and the air attack of Friendly Kurdish soldiers and press in the North of Iraq.
Frangland
26-04-2005, 15:21
Well, dont forget. Because we are Americans we are expected to know beforehand information that comes to light only after an event takes place. God forbid we work with only the information that is available at the time.

yah, no kidding.

they sped, didn't stop, and were shot.

it's called a SECURITY CHECKPOINT. how F'ing STUPID can you be to SPEED through one, ignoring signs and soldiers ordering you to stop or slow down?

when insurgent nutjobs have been trying to plow their bomb-laden cars into US soldiers/US vehicles to create deadly explosions, how do you think the US is likely to react to a car speeding right for them?

you'd think that at some point common sense would take over and the driver might think, "Hmmm, maybe they'll think wer'e terrorists if we keep speeding right at them..."


---
as for WMD, i won't believe the hype until someone tells me that they've checked at least 20 feet deep over every square foot in the country.

they could be anywhere if they're there. and iraq is about the size of california... pretty freaking big. so if they start now with a hundred people, maybe they could check thoroughly and in 20 years, be finished.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:23
If I was in the car
You'd be dead now.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:23
So you were in combats in a desert and were shot at? yep, and as every UK soldier has to account for every time he discharges his weapon and for rounds fired I'm sure he had to explain what he did to some one. Unlike the system you were under when you were out there.
This is not the same as an aircraft seeing a target and failing to verify from it's position of safety if the target is a threat or a friendly. Same as when US pilot shot down a UK helicopter (a chinook of all things) before they bothered seeing if it was a friendly. they appear to shoot anything not imediatly recognised as US. Oh yes and the air attack of Friendly Kurdish soldiers and press in the North of Iraq.

None of the soldiers in question got in trouble. They all were sorry, but they also thought it was funny. Especially their RSM, who chided them about being such bad shots.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 15:24
None of the soldiers in question got in trouble. They all were sorry, but they also thought it was funny. Especially their RSM, who chided them about being such bad shots.
:D
NianNorth
26-04-2005, 15:26
None of the soldiers in question got in trouble. They all were sorry, but they also thought it was funny. Especially their RSM, who chided them about being such bad shots.
The situation was regretable but soldiers on the ground (US or UK) I can give more leway to that the air attacks mentioned. After all on the ground the threat is much more real. As to being bad shots, if you were within 2-300 yds I would expect them to get close if not hit. So I do think more training is required.
Gataway_Driver
26-04-2005, 15:29
None of the soldiers in question got in trouble. They all were sorry, but they also thought it was funny. Especially their RSM, who chided them about being such bad shots.

British humour, gotta love it. If you had been hit i doubt it would have been a laughing matter
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:29
The situation was regretable but soldiers on the ground (US or UK) I can give more leway to that the air attacks mentioned. After all on the ground the threat is much more real. As to being bad shots, if you were within 2-300 yds I would expect them to get close if not hit. So I do think more training is required.

As for air attacks, I've always been told that a pilot can't really identify a ground target - there were Apache pilots who shot up US troops during the first Gulf War. Nor can an automated system like PAC-3 really distinguish friend from foe when it's set up to select and fire at targets automatically.

In a perfect world, none of this would happen. And when the weapons are deadlier, the accidents are deadlier.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:31
You'd be dead now.

Of course I would be, and Sgrena should consider her self lucky she isn't. That's the point, you blow through a checkpoint at a high rate of speed, you will get shot. Now, go on and worry about something meaningful. Maybe your country's double digit unemployment, declining GDP, and neo Nazis.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:32
It's non of the US's business if a country decides to pay or not pay ransom for one of it's citizens.


No-but its clear they didnt want that to come to light and maybe felt they could circumvent a US checkpoint. thats is our business. If they were honest with us and advised us they would be running, they would have had our support and protection.
But you keep right on spewing that we are the bad guys and we enjoy hurting our friends.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:33
But you keep right on spewing that we are the bad guys and we enjoy hurting our friends.
The truth sucks doesn't it?
Gataway_Driver
26-04-2005, 15:34
Of course I would be, and Sgrena should consider her self lucky she isn't. That's the point, you blow through a checkpoint at a high rate of speed, you will get shot. Now, go on and worry about something meaningful. Maybe your country's double digit unemployment, declining GDP, and neo Nazis.

and one of the most progressive envionmental adgenas in years
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:34
Ein Deutscher']I talked with a friend about this and we both were not surprised about this outcome. It's just like asking Hitler if he did anything wrong, if he had been caught :p Americans time and time again excempt their soldiers and government officials from the rule of law and expect the rest of the world to dance to their tune and obey every command they mutter. This my friend is victor's justice in action and live - no surprise considering the supremacy with which US soldiers and many US people consider their own existence or presence elsewhere in the world... :rolleyes:


Hey-look at who is talking about a "supremacy" complex. That is the true root of all your frustrated ramblings.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:35
The truth sucks doesn't it?
Speaking as someone who has been misidentified and shot at by an ally, I am not inclined to ascribe such things to malice, as you are so eager to do.

You've obviously never been in combat.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:35
The truth sucks doesn't it?

This is far from the truth, laddie. Its only believable in your small angry world.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:36
Of course I would be, and Sgrena should consider her self lucky she isn't.
I'm sure she's counting her blessings. Unfortunatly the man who got her out was gunned down in cold blood.
Maybe your country's double digit unemployment.
Double digit?
Flying Cheese Monkeys
26-04-2005, 15:36
The situation was regretable but soldiers on the ground (US or UK) I can give more leway to that the air attacks mentioned. After all on the ground the threat is much more real. As to being bad shots, if you were within 2-300 yds I would expect them to get close if not hit. So I do think more training is required.

More training. hahahhaha try retraining.
i can hit a 1ft square target with a 30-30 with iron sights and cheap rounds at 250 yards and i am not in the military. with a military grade wepon and ammo you really ought to try for 350-450 yards consistantly i mean come on.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:36
You've obviously never been in combat.
So what if I haven't?
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:38
and one of the most progressive envionmental adgenas in years

I'm assuming you mean agenda...Sure, it's nice to have a park to sit in after a tough day of attending a neo Nazi rally, looking for non-existent work, and blaming America for your social problems. I bet it's real peaceful.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:39
The French are there with a UN mandate. Unlike the bloodsucking American fiends they didn't invade the country under a guise of lies.
Plus they are our friends and allies.


Thats good-the two of you have always made a cute couple.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:39
So what if I haven't?

It's hard to pass judgement on situational ethics if you have no idea what it's like to be in that situation.

Kind of like me lecturing a woman on what it's like to be pregnant, and telling her the pain isn't so bad.
Flying Cheese Monkeys
26-04-2005, 15:39
So what if I haven't?

you ever been shot at or been near an explosion????
Caediah
26-04-2005, 15:40
Ein Deutscher']I talked with a friend about this and we both were not surprised about this outcome. It's just like asking Hitler if he did anything wrong, if he had been caught :p Americans time and time again excempt their soldiers and government officials from the rule of law and expect the rest of the world to dance to their tune and obey every command they mutter. This my friend is victor's justice in action and live - no surprise considering the supremacy with which US soldiers and many US people consider their own existence or presence elsewhere in the world... :rolleyes:

Equating the United States with Hitler? Wow, that's harsh. I fail to see how the US has tried to perform all out genocide...
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:41
I'm sure she's counting her blessings. Unfortunatly the man who got her out was gunned down in cold blood.

Double digit?

Right, double digit....German unemployment still rising
A worker building cars in an Poel factory in Germany
The number of unemployed is rising faster than expected
Unemployment remains a serious problem in Germany and the economy is not growing fast enough to sort it out, according to the Federal Labour Office.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment rose to 4.367 million in April, up by 23,000 from March.

In April, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stood at 10.5%, up from 10.4% in March.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:41
I'm assuming you mean agenda...Sure, it's nice to have a park to sit in after a tough day of attending a neo Nazi rally, looking for non-existent work, and blaming America for your social problems. I bet it's real peaceful.

they have to blame someone-its always someone else's fault. They better find out who it is an exterminate them quickly.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:42
Right, double digit....German unemployment still rising
A worker building cars in an Poel factory in Germany
The number of unemployed is rising faster than expected
Unemployment remains a serious problem in Germany and the economy is not growing fast enough to sort it out, according to the Federal Labour Office.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment rose to 4.367 million in April, up by 23,000 from March.

In April, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stood at 10.5%, up from 10.4% in March.

It's much higher among young people.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 15:43
Equating the United States with Hitler? Wow, that's harsh. I fail to see how the US has tried to perform all out genocide...


Its more than harsh-its retarded thought. Or an attempt to make people with functioning brains angry.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:45
Right, double digit....German unemployment still rising
A worker building cars in an Poel factory in Germany
The number of unemployed is rising faster than expected
Unemployment remains a serious problem in Germany and the economy is not growing fast enough to sort it out, according to the Federal Labour Office.

Seasonally adjusted unemployment rose to 4.367 million in April, up by 23,000 from March.

In April, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stood at 10.5%, up from 10.4% in March.
Oh. You were talking about the percentages.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:46
they have to blame someone-its always someone else's fault. They better find out who it is an exterminate them quickly.

With fully 10.5% of the population or 4.367 million out of work, it's a good chance our German anti-American friends on this post are part of this statistic. I know my good buddy Ein Deutscher is. They don't have anything really better to do. I mean, it's easy to spew this drivel rather than go out and actually find a job or try to change the way things are in your own country.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:47
It's hard to pass judgement on situational ethics if you have no idea what it's like to be in that situation.
No. It's actually quit easy. And I have 6 pages to proof it.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:48
With fully 10.5% of the population or 4.367 million out of work, it's a good chance our German anti-American friends on this post are part of this statistic. I know my good buddy Ein Deutscher is. They don't have anything really better to do. I mean, it's easy to spew this drivel rather than go out and actually find a job or try to change the way things are in your own country.
Actually I'm a student.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:50
Actually I'm a student.

Cool, that means you have all the time in the world to join in on some really good neo Nazi immigrant bashing as well as actually learning the facts about something before you post. The immigrant bashing must have gotten out of hand as you failed in the latter.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:53
Cool, that means you have all the time in the world to join in on some really good neo Nazi immigrant bashing as well as actually learning the facts about something before you post. The immigrant bashing must have gotten out of hand as you failed in the latter.
Oh goodygoody. I've been upgraded to neo-Nazi.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 15:54
Equating the United States with Hitler? Wow, that's harsh. I fail to see how the US has tried to perform all out genocide...
My so quick to misread my comparison that the age-old "how dare you compare the US to Hitler?! OMG!" line escaped your little mouth too early. Read again and you'll see that I did not equate the US to Hitler, although the US is not so different in some aspects ;)
Eutrusca
26-04-2005, 15:54
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. military investigation has cleared American troops of any wrongdoing in the shooting death last month of an Italian security agent in Baghdad, according to a senior Pentagon official.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/25/iraq.italian.decision/index.html

Is anyone realy suprised by this?
Not at all! What's surprising is that anyone could think that this incident was deliberate.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:55
Oh goodygoody. I've been upgraded to neo-Nazi.
Not a neo-Nazi, but certainly a German nationalist. Oh, horror! He's succumbed to a right-wing disease and he's rather Left.

Easy to catch, that disease. Easier than picking up a new bicycle.
Eutrusca
26-04-2005, 15:55
Oh goodygoody. I've been upgraded to neo-Nazi.
Is this really surprising to anyone? :)
Sdaeriji
26-04-2005, 15:55
Cool, that means you have all the time in the world to join in on some really good neo Nazi immigrant bashing as well as actually learning the facts about something before you post. The immigrant bashing must have gotten out of hand as you failed in the latter.

You might want to cut out the flamebaiting.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:56
Oh goodygoody. I've been upgraded to neo-Nazi.

That's my point, it's easy to make broad generalizations about a population. You've been doing it the entire thread about Americans. I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon and engage in a little German bashing for a bit just to even things up. You don't mind do you Himmler?
Eutrusca
26-04-2005, 15:56
Actually I'm a student.
Of what? You're obviously not a student of international relations, military theory, or democracy.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:57
Not a neo-Nazi, but certainly a German nationalist.
Certainly. But also a European nationalist.
Oh, horror! He's succumbed to a right-wing disease and he's rather Left.

Easy to catch, that disease. Easier than picking up a new bicycle.
Eeh...what?
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 15:57
Of what?
European studies and management.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 15:58
Certainly. But also a European nationalist.

Eeh...what?

Well, if it's OK for you to be a nationalist, it's OK for me to be one. And I still want my bicycle back.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 15:59
You might want to cut out the flamebaiting.

The entire thread is falmebaiting...
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 15:59
With fully 10.5% of the population or 4.367 million out of work, it's a good chance our German anti-American friends on this post are part of this statistic. I know my good buddy Ein Deutscher is. They don't have anything really better to do. I mean, it's easy to spew this drivel rather than go out and actually find a job or try to change the way things are in your own country.
You see it the wrong way... it's because I am unemployed, that I can spend so much time reading about what's going on in the world, even watching US news and our own news and comparing what the differences are, debating on various politicial forums, etc. That I don't have a job (at the moment) gives me plenty time to involve myself in political discussions - not just here - and in political parties (I'm member of a new party in Germany). Not having a job does not mean that a person instantly loses his/her brain. I consider myself more informed on political events than most other people in Germany, simply because I have the time to investigate and read more than one source.
Sdaeriji
26-04-2005, 16:00
The entire thread is falmebaiting...

No, pretty much everyone else is keeping it in line except you.

edit: Figures the very next post would prove me wrong....
Eutrusca
26-04-2005, 16:00
The truth sucks doesn't it?
How would you know? You obviously can't identify it when it stands in front of you and slaps you across the face.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:04
How would you know? You obviously can't identify it when it stands in front of you and slaps you across the face.
Oh? So then enlighten me to what the truth is. Lemme guess. USA good. All others bad. Unless they worship USA. Something like that?
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:05
Oh? So then enlighten me to what the truth is. Lemme guess. USA good. All others bad. Unless they worship USA. Something like that?
Rather like EU good, all others bad, unless they live like Europeans, which is the only way to live.

That, and the beer is far better than the swill the US peddles.
Quagmir
26-04-2005, 16:08
That, and the beer is far better than the swill the US peddles.

Now, that one was a given
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 16:09
Oh? So then enlighten me to what the truth is. Lemme guess. USA good. All others bad. Unless they worship USA. Something like that?

Nah, USA can be good and bad, so can others. The Italian incident while unfortunate, was not the fault of the Americans. I think that's all the enlightenment you should need.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:09
Rather like EU good, all others bad, unless they live like Europeans, which is the only way to live.
Yes. So?

That, and the beer is far better than the swill the US peddles.
No argument there either.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 16:10
Ein Deutscher']You see it the wrong way... it's because I am unemployed, that I can spend so much time reading about what's going on in the world, even watching US news and our own news and comparing what the differences are, debating on various politicial forums, etc. That I don't have a job (at the moment) gives me plenty time to involve myself in political discussions - not just here - and in political parties (I'm member of a new party in Germany). Not having a job does not mean that a person instantly loses his/her brain. I consider myself more informed on political events than most other people in Germany, simply because I have the time to investigate and read more than one source.

Well put, I mean it.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:10
European studies and management.


No doubt the good professor has a number of issues with the US.
Valosia
26-04-2005, 16:10
Hey, kinda funny how logical argument left the board once it was pointed out that a joint Italy-USA commission found no wrongful doing.

Other points to Europeans from a European-American (tri-citizenship):

Stop getting your news and facts about the United States through your own media, and seek out some facts and stats on your own. You cannot claim moral superiority if you are ignorant enough to accept being TOLD what you should be think.

If the US was nearly as bad as you made it out to be, then how come when the US was the only nation in the world with nuclear capability for a 4 year period and did NOT resort to annexing most of Europe, and eliminating all other enemies? It could've easily destroyed all opposition when it was the only nation with nuclear weapons. Could it be they are more merciful then you think? Or is it hard to stomach that a group of people...supposedly backwards and unsophisticated mutts as Euro intellectuals will STILL assert, are the ones who dominate global politics?

Europe used to be the center of the world, but combining the lack of ambition and decline of national pride will ensure that while Europe drowns in its unworkable social theories and feel good politics the rest of the globe will disregard it as a tangible region of power. While words are indeed meaningful, an unwillingness to stand behind them means nothing.

The UN is not what it used to be...it was designed to be a forum for major powers of the world to discuss issues to prevent major conflicts. The first world nations dropped the ball by letting 3rd world nations have too much power. The UN is now a bastardization of what it was supposed to be. The Human Rights Commission is chaired by 3rd world dictatorships now, while its officials exploit the system for profit. It is almost reminescent of the Papacy in Medieval Europe. In concept a benevolent power, but in practice a corrupt stage for the power hungry to ascend upon.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:12
Yes. So?

No argument there either.

Then if it's ok for you to be an EU nationalist, it's perfectly fine for me to be a US nationalist.

Let us all now pull out our flags and wave them, at the same time trying to convince ourselves that our nationalism will not turn into fascism at any moment.

While I have to suffer the lack of good beer, I do have far better steak to eat.
Matchopolis
26-04-2005, 16:12
While driving through these volatile areas while others are behind bulletproof glass in an armored Humvee, one person is always in the open, the gunner. Covered with dust and grime he peers across his field of vision for threats to the patrol. He's the first to be shot at and he's the first to shoot back. When insurgents come knocking he answers with a .50 cal machinegun and a Squad Automatic Weapon which fires 5.56mm ammo just like the M-4 he also carries. Times have happened when men used all three weapons in the same fire fight.

Do you whine about how stressful your job is? Over 6,000 miles and 6 months from home, in the darkness of night, a car accelerates towards your checkpoint. Is it a drunk racing home, a father speeding to an emergency or an insurgent who won't back down or possibly in this age of jihadist extremism, a suicide bomber intending on detonating 200lbs of TNT as he impacts your Humvee in an attempt to kill as many as possible. A warning shot is fired from the .50 cal to slap some sense into the driver. Why does the car keeping coming? No time to evaluate moral arguments as the tires dig in pushing the car faster and faster towards you. Is the driver an daring idiot, a raving drunk, insurgent or suicide bomber? Would you wait and find out?
The decisions evil men force our troops into making will create ramifications that will last a lifetime. It burns my hide when I hear uninformed people making second guessing decisions made by our men under the stress and pressure of combat. If you won't stand behind a soldier...stand in front of him.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:14
While I have to suffer the lack of good beer, I do have far better steak to eat.
We have Argentinian steaks/beef here as well.
Sdaeriji
26-04-2005, 16:14
If the US was nearly as bad as you made it out to be, then how come when the US was the only nation in the world with nuclear capability for a 4 year period and did NOT resort to annexing most of Europe, and eliminating all other enemies? It could've easily destroyed all opposition when it was the only nation with nuclear weapons. Could it be they are more merciful then you think? Or is it hard to stomach that a group of people...supposedly backwards and unsophisticated mutts as Euro intellectuals will STILL assert, are the ones who dominate global politics?

1. The US used all their nuclear weapons on Japan. It would have taken them quite a while to create more.

2. Most of the world's armies were still quite mobilized in the wake of World War II. There would be absolutely no surprise.

3. As powerful as the United States military was, there was no way they could have engaged the whole of Europe. Germany's military was much more impressive prior to World War II and they were incapable of taking Europe.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:15
Hey, kinda funny how logical argument left the board once it was pointed out that a joint Italy-USA commission found no wrongful doing.

Other points to Europeans from a European-American (tri-citizenship):

Stop getting your news and facts about the United States through your own media, and seek out some facts and stats on your own. You cannot claim moral superiority if you are ignorant enough to accept being TOLD what you should be think.

If the US was nearly as bad as you made it out to be, then how come when the US was the only nation in the world with nuclear capability for a 4 year period and did NOT resort to annexing most of Europe, and eliminating all other enemies? It could've easily destroyed all opposition when it was the only nation with nuclear weapons. Could it be they are more merciful then you think? Or is it hard to stomach that a group of people...supposedly backwards and unsophisticated mutts as Euro intellectuals will STILL assert, are the ones who dominate global politics?

Europe used to be the center of the world, but combining the lack of ambition and decline of national pride will ensure that while Europe drowns in its unworkable social theories and feel good politics the rest of the globe will disregard it as a tangible region of power. While words are indeed meaningful, an unwillingness to stand behind them means nothing.

The UN is not what it used to be...it was designed to be a forum for major powers of the world to discuss issues to prevent major conflicts. The first world nations dropped the ball by letting 3rd world nations have too much power. The UN is now a bastardization of what it was supposed to be. The Human Rights Commission is chaired by 3rd world dictatorships now, while its officials exploit the system for profit. It is almost reminescent of the Papacy in Medieval Europe. In concept a benevolent power, but in practice a corrupt stage for the power hungry to ascend upon.

Well said.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:15
Then if it's ok for you to be an EU nationalist, it's perfectly fine for me to be a US nationalist.
Never said it wasn't.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:16
No doubt the good professor has a number of issues with the US.
I wouldn't know. I haven't asked him.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:19
We have Argentinian steaks/beef here as well.

I've been to many places that purported to be "steak" restaurants in Europe. To the very last one, they suck beyond all belief, and the steaks are microscopic.

To get a decent sized, aged Porterhouse, you have to come to the US.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:20
While driving through these volatile areas while others are behind bulletproof glass in an armored Humvee, one person is always in the open, the gunner. Covered with dust and grime he peers across his field of vision for threats to the patrol. He's the first to be shot at and he's the first to shoot back. When insurgents come knocking he answers with a .50 cal machinegun and a Squad Automatic Weapon which fires 5.56mm ammo just like the M-4 he also carries. Times have happened when men used all three weapons in the same fire fight.

Do you whine about how stressful your job is? Over 6,000 miles and 6 months from home, in the darkness of night, a car accelerates towards your checkpoint. Is it a drunk racing home, a father speeding to an emergency or an insurgent who won't back down or possibly in this age of jihadist extremism, a suicide bomber intending on detonating 200lbs of TNT as he impacts your Humvee in an attempt to kill as many as possible. A warning shot is fired from the .50 cal to slap some sense into the driver. Why does the car keeping coming? No time to evaluate moral arguments as the tires dig in pushing the car faster and faster towards you. Is the driver an daring idiot, a raving drunk, insurgent or suicide bomber? Would you wait and find out?
The decisions evil men force our troops into making will create ramifications that will last a lifetime. It burns my hide when I hear uninformed people making second guessing decisions made by our men under the stress and pressure of combat. If you won't stand behind a soldier...stand in front of him.


This certainly gives the reader a sense of what it must be like. Those of us that agree can understand this. Those that dont agree wont bother to try to understand. Its so much easier to fire up their colorful imaginations and imagine US soldiers as trigger happy, bloodthirsty werewolves coming for their children next.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:21
I wouldn't know. I haven't asked him.


Of course not-you would never question authority. Just fit his mold and you'll be safe and secure.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 16:22
Hey, kinda funny how logical argument left the board once it was pointed out that a joint Italy-USA commission found no wrongful doing.

The Italians were not involved in this US military white-washing operation. It was a pentagon investigation, not joint and certainly not with Italians. Quite at the contrary, the Italians are officially still investigating, but the public in Italy has no trust in this US investigation result due to i.e. Guiliana Sgrena, saying the exact opposite of what the US military officials claim.

Other points to Europeans from a European-American (tri-citizenship):

Stop getting your news and facts about the United States through your own media, and seek out some facts and stats on your own. You cannot claim moral superiority if you are ignorant enough to accept being TOLD what you should be think.

CNN certainly is not "our" media. it's a US media corporation, if I remember correctly. Though you'll find the same news in our news and on Reuters and other international news agencies. They're quite trustworthy most of the time.

If the US was nearly as bad as you made it out to be, then how come when the US was the only nation in the world with nuclear capability for a 4 year period and did NOT resort to annexing most of Europe, and eliminating all other enemies? It could've easily destroyed all opposition when it was the only nation with nuclear weapons. Could it be they are more merciful then you think? Or is it hard to stomach that a group of people...supposedly backwards and unsophisticated mutts as Euro intellectuals will STILL assert, are the ones who dominate global politics?

The US don't grab world domination this obviously. They do it through hidden channels, by economic pressure, by installing military bases world-wide to be able to have a global posture, that allows them to strike anywhere as they please. Nukes are good for "shock and awe" but they do not make good peace-winning weapons, due to the horror they cause. If the US had to face the whole world against it, it would not stand a chance. It's not even good enough to deal with Iraq on it's own or to win against Vietnam (30 years ago), so any dreams of US superiority are just that - dreams. The US, while politically dominant, do not control world politics. Otherwise, the UN would have been much more involved in Iraq long ago. Face it, your president made a big boo-boo and the US can't sort it out on it's own, because as a world hegemon it is unqualified, inexperienced, too young, culturally inept, morally and socially backwards. There simply is no country that could make a good world hegemon since all of the larger ones have their black marks in history.

Europe used to be the center of the world, but combining the lack of ambition and decline of national pride will ensure that while Europe drowns in its unworkable social theories and feel good politics the rest of the globe will disregard it as a tangible region of power. While words are indeed meaningful, an unwillingness to stand behind them means nothing.

The EU is larger and economically more powerful than the US. How's that for center of the world? The US is on it's way out while the EU, India and China are the emerging superpowers of tomorrow.

The UN is not what it used to be...it was designed to be a forum for major powers of the world to discuss issues to prevent major conflicts. The first world nations dropped the ball by letting 3rd world nations have too much power. The UN is now a bastardization of what it was supposed to be. The Human Rights Commission is chaired by 3rd world dictatorships now, while its officials exploit the system for profit. It is almost reminescent of the Papacy in Medieval Europe. In concept a benevolent power, but in practice a corrupt stage for the power hungry to ascend upon.
The UN is not a puppet of the US and does not jump to every order the US gives them. Thats why it is now treated like crap by US politicians. A toy that has been broken is now useless, eh? On it's own, the UN can't act, since it is a political forum without actual power to do something. It's primarily the veto powers - among the most veto-using ones the US - who cripple(d) the UN and made it useless in many situations. :rolleyes:
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:23
I've been to many places that purported to be "steak" restaurants in Europe. To the very last one, they suck beyond all belief, and the steaks are microscopic.

To get a decent sized, aged Porterhouse, you have to come to the US.

Wait-you dont enjoy that sublime nugget of meat, roughly the size of the cork out of your wine bottle ?
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:23
I've been to many places that purported to be "steak" restaurants in Europe. To the very last one, they suck beyond all belief, and the steaks are microscopic.
Yeah. They realy are to small.

To get a decent sized, aged Porterhouse, you have to come to the US.
And get fingerprinted and what all? I don't think so.
Riconiaa
26-04-2005, 16:24
You know. I believe you.

Nothing else to be said. I beleive you. :mp5:
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:24
Of course not-you would never question authority.
If I wouldn't I would be outside waving the colours of the occupation forces.
Maraculand
26-04-2005, 16:25
funny how germans complain about unjustifiable war...
Valosia
26-04-2005, 16:26
The US used all their nuclear weapons on Japan. It would have taken them quite a while to create more.

The United States had an arsenal of about 56 by 1947. Enough to destroy every major Soviet city and base, with enough to spare for a European conflict.

Most of the world's armies were still quite mobilized in the wake of World War II. There would be absolutely no surprise.

No, but even fanatical Japan folded rather quickly when two cities were instantly vaporized. Suprise wouldn't have been key, fear would have been.

As powerful as the United States military was, there was no way they could have engaged the whole of Europe. Germany's military was much more impressive prior to World War II and they were incapable of taking Europe.

They didn't have a weapon capable of destroying a city. They were a conventional war machine like any other army. If they had discovered the bomb first, they easily would've won. Although there would be a few fanatics holding out, most people would give up at the prospect of being nuked.

Of course, this is theoretical.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:27
Yeah. They realy are to small.

And get fingerprinted and what all? I don't think so.

I think that biometrics is going to be the wave of the future. You already have a national identity card (which we don't have yet, but may in the future). Adding biometrics to a national identity card is an obvious step.

Probably include your DNA. In the US military, they get your DNA on day one - it's part of how the military knows who you are if you get killed.

Staying in the EU isn't going to save you from the government knowing when you move your bowels.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 16:27
funny how germans complain about unjustifiable war...
Funny how Americans who always claim proudly how free and good they are, do the same thing they criticize other nations for, excempt themselves from international law and ignore their own constitution.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:29
I think that biometrics is going to be the wave of the future. You already have a national identity card (which we don't have yet, but may in the future). Adding biometrics to a national identity card is an obvious step.

Probably include your DNA. In the US military, they get your DNA on day one - it's part of how the military knows who you are if you get killed.

Staying in the EU isn't going to save you from the government knowing when you move your bowels.
I have no desire to give up my biometric information to a foreign government when entering the country.
Big Scoob
26-04-2005, 16:30
Ein Deutscher']The Italians were not involved in this US military white-washing operation. It was a pentagon investigation, not joint and certainly not with Italians. Quite at the contrary, the Italians are officially still investigating, but the public in Italy has no trust in this US investigation result due to i.e. Guiliana Sgrena, saying the exact opposite of what the US military officials claim. :rolleyes:

Hmm, seems like the report says "joint investigation" to me. Here's the story.
Report clears U.S. in friendly fire incident
Italian negotiator failed to coordinate rescue with U.S. military
By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:37 p.m. ET April 13, 2005

BAGHDAD - The friendly fire shooting at a U.S. military checkpoint last month in Baghdad wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and killed intelligence agent Nicola Calipari.

advertisement
Now, NBC News has learned that a preliminary report from a joint U.S.-Italian investigation has cleared the American soldiers of any wrongdoing and provides new details into the shooting.

Intelligence agent Calipari had just negotiated Sgrena's release from Iraqi kidnappers on March 4 when the two and a driver headed for the Baghdad airport in a compact rental car.

It was dark when the Italians turned onto a ramp leading to the airport road where the U.S. military had set up a temporary checkpoint.

The investigation found the car was about 130 yards from the checkpoint when the soldiers flashed their lights as a warning to stop. But the car kept coming and, at 90 yards, warning shots were fired. At 65 yards, when the car failed to stop, the soldiers used lethal force — a machine gun burst that killed Calipari and wounded Sgrena and the driver.

Senior U.S. military officials say it took only about four seconds from the first warning to the fatal shots, but insist the soldiers acted properly under the current rules of engagement.

The investigation failed, however, to resolve one critical dispute: The Americans claim the car was racing toward the checkpoint at about 50 miles per hour, the Italians say it was traveling at a much slower speed.

In Italy, agent Calipari was given a state funeral, but the investigation found he himself may have committed a fatal error. He reportedly chose not to coordinate his movements with the U.S. military for fear it would jeopardize his efforts to free the Italian hostage.


As a result of the incident, the U.S. military will review its procedures regarding the use of lethal force at checkpoints, but senior military officials say they'll take no action that would put American soldiers at greater risk.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:30
I have no desire to give up my biometric information to a foreign government when entering the country.

Apparently, most of the EU identity data has already been passed to the US for data mining. As has most of the US airline ticket data over the past few years, etc.

You're probably already in a computer over here.
Boodicka
26-04-2005, 16:31
Is anyone realy suprised by this? Not really. Since Junior unsigned the Rome Statute, and deemed Geneva Convention as non-applicable to the Violation of Iraq, no 'outcome' that protects the interests of the current US administration should surprise anyone.
Roma Islamica
26-04-2005, 16:31
:rolleyes:

Yes, imagine... racing past military vehicles who are patrolling a road and telling you to stop getting you shot.

Why, I just bet that if Americans in a civilian car did that in, oh, I dunno, Germany, or Israel, or gee, anywhere else in the world, there would have been a different outcome!

Gosh, those awful Americans....

The thing is, they weren't racing past anyone. Besides, in the U.S. we do have laws that hold people at least somewhat responsible for things like that. I believe the crime would be "Involuntary Manslaughter", though I'm not entirely convinced as of yet that this was "involuntary". In fact, I'm pretty sure it was ordered. In any case though, I don't see how it's fair that people can go to jail for the rest of their lives for committing financial and fraudulent crimes (which has happened) and these people kill someone by accident or not and don't even get the typically requisite slap on the wrist.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:33
I have no desire to give up my biometric information to a foreign government when entering the country.


I agree. I wouldnt go to another country that required that either. You stay out of the US and I'll stay out of Germany.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:34
You're probably already in a computer over here.
That only supports my statement about the hostile US occupation of Europe.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:34
The thing is, they weren't racing past anyone.

According to eyewitnesses, they raced past three (count them, 3) checkpoints before the people at the last checkpoint opened fire.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:36
Apparently, most of the EU identity data has already been passed to the US for data mining.
By the by. You wouldn't happen to have a source for this?
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:37
Hmm, seems like the report says "joint investigation" to me. Here's the story.
Report clears U.S. in friendly fire incident
Italian negotiator failed to coordinate rescue with U.S. military
By Jim Miklaszewski
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:37 p.m. ET April 13, 2005

BAGHDAD - The friendly fire shooting at a U.S. military checkpoint last month in Baghdad wounded Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and killed intelligence agent Nicola Calipari.

advertisement
Now, NBC News has learned that a preliminary report from a joint U.S.-Italian investigation has cleared the American soldiers of any wrongdoing and provides new details into the shooting.

Intelligence agent Calipari had just negotiated Sgrena's release from Iraqi kidnappers on March 4 when the two and a driver headed for the Baghdad airport in a compact rental car.

It was dark when the Italians turned onto a ramp leading to the airport road where the U.S. military had set up a temporary checkpoint.

The investigation found the car was about 130 yards from the checkpoint when the soldiers flashed their lights as a warning to stop. But the car kept coming and, at 90 yards, warning shots were fired. At 65 yards, when the car failed to stop, the soldiers used lethal force — a machine gun burst that killed Calipari and wounded Sgrena and the driver.

Senior U.S. military officials say it took only about four seconds from the first warning to the fatal shots, but insist the soldiers acted properly under the current rules of engagement.

The investigation failed, however, to resolve one critical dispute: The Americans claim the car was racing toward the checkpoint at about 50 miles per hour, the Italians say it was traveling at a much slower speed.

In Italy, agent Calipari was given a state funeral, but the investigation found he himself may have committed a fatal error. He reportedly chose not to coordinate his movements with the U.S. military for fear it would jeopardize his efforts to free the Italian hostage.


As a result of the incident, the U.S. military will review its procedures regarding the use of lethal force at checkpoints, but senior military officials say they'll take no action that would put American soldiers at greater risk.

Come on-you know you cant quote a US news organization. We all know they are in cahoots with the US military and would never investigate or report any allegations that would put a negative shade on the US military.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:38
Come on-you know you cant quote a US news organization. We all know they are in cahoots with the US military and would never investigate or report any allegations that would put a negative shade on the US military.
If you have a problem with the news source I provided I can check what democracynow.com has to say about it.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:39
By the by. You wouldn't happen to have a source for this?
I'll give you a hint. Department of Homeland Security. Watchlists.

Where do you think they come up with the names, or how they identify them as potential risks?

Data mining. Coming up with names by observing actual people on the ground overseas is too slow. But in order to mine the data, you have to have all of the raw data - which means everyone.

There are major contracts for this sort of work right now.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 16:42
If you have a problem with the news source I provided I can check what democracynow.com has to say about it.


I was actually responding to Big Scoob's source, not yours. He provided a source to back up what he said, but its likely not a good enough source for those of a differing opinion.
Ploor
26-04-2005, 16:43
CNN is a very liberal media outlet, their stories will always be anti-Bush if they can word it that way

I was not there when the shooting happened, so all I can do is read about it and come to my own decision based on what is written

and if you really want to get into the legallities of the gulf war 2, since the first gulf war ended in a cease fire agreement based on Saddams submitting to UN inspections,m the moment he kicked the inspectors out, the US was within the law to carry on fighting, just like in the Korean conflict, they are still legally "at war" with a cease fire agreement, the korean war never ended.

As to steaks, when I lived in Germany (70 to 75) we always ate shnitzel (probably spelled wrong) when we went out to a restuarant and to me, a good shnitzel is equal to a good steak any day

And they are already selling fingerprint door locks here in the US for home use

and as to beer, since anything with alcohol in it taste like crap to me, I can say truthfully that it is all bad to me
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:43
I'll give you a hint. Department of Homeland Security. Watchlists.

Where do you think they come up with the names, or how they identify them as potential risks?

Data mining. Coming up with names by observing actual people on the ground overseas is too slow. But in order to mine the data, you have to have all of the raw data - which means everyone.

There are major contracts for this sort of work right now.
I just wanted a link to the source.
Ulrichland
26-04-2005, 16:48
Apparently, most of the EU identity data has already been passed to the US for data mining. As has most of the US airline ticket data over the past few years, etc.

You're probably already in a computer over here.

Hooray for US paranoia and neo-fascism!
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:50
I just wanted a link to the source.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22269-2005Jan19.html

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many contracts to mine every piece of data that they can get. That article is only about credit data - but if you have ever had a credit card, you're in the database - and they know where you live, where you shop, what you buy, and when. Not just your payment history.

and to scare you: http://www.europeaninstitute.org/print.php?section=homeland

Homeland Security Seminar
May 10, 2004
Roundtable on Homeland Security

Key European and American leaders came together to exchange views on the use of personal data and privacy protection in immigration and travel at The European Institute's Transatlantic Project on Homeland Security Cooperation seminar on May 10. Bridging US-European Homeland Security Concerns addressed the progress of transatlantic security cooperation, instituting border protections while allowing for travel and immigration, and future plans to enhance US-European dialogue on the collection, use and storage of personal data to protect against potential terrorist threats.

The Honorable Otto Schily, German Minister of the Interior, opened the meeting with an overview of the current state of information-sharing among US and European agencies with border and immigration responsibilities, European concerns about the use and storage of biometric data, and the challenge of controlling immigration while allowing economic markets to flourish. Dr. Richard Falkenrath, Deputy Assistant to President George W. Bush and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, discussed transatlantic challenges in information-sharing among law enforcement entities, identifying and shutting down potential terror threats, and securing international transportation and travel.

The second panel delved into the complex issues involved in travel and border security. C. Stewart Verdery, Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy and Planning at the Department of Homeland Security; Gregory Rothwell, Chief Procurement Officer at the Department of Homeland Security; and William R. Sweeney, Jr., Vice President for Global Government Affairs at EDS Corporation spoke about the efforts that the United States has undertaken to preserve its border security, the privacy issues that these measures have raised, and new technologies that could make travel and immigration more secure and less cumbersome for the governments involved and for the public.

The Honorable Antonio Vitorino, European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs offered his perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for US-European cooperation on law enforcement measures. While he was encouraged by the progress made between the United States and Europe on sharing information on travelers under a US-European passenger data agreement, he highlighted the need to expand the US-European visa waiver program to include all of the expansion countries now part of the European Union, and stepping up the sharing of information among law enforcement agencies in the United States and Europe.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 16:52
Ah thanks.
Now this made me laugh.
The Honorable Otto Schily
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 16:57
It looks like your EU officials are eager to violate EU laws, and satisfy the US need for data:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000092.html
Ulrichland
26-04-2005, 17:01
It looks like your EU officials are eager to violate EU laws, and satisfy the US need for data:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000092.html

B-S.

It wouldn´t be a problem at all if the "beacon of freedom and liberty" (insert laughter here) called the US of A wouldn´t have turned so paranoid that they want to control everyone and spy on everyone.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 17:02
It looks like your EU officials are eager to violate EU laws, and satisfy the US need for data:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000092.html
More proof of what I said earlier.
Somewhere
26-04-2005, 17:17
I don't know enough about the facts of this case to make a sound judgement on who was in the wrong. But one thing's for sure, I won't be instantly believing the US troops, especially after that time they decided it would be really clever to shoot one of our fighter planes down.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 17:27
Ah thanks.
Now this made me laugh.
Really eh.. The "honourable Otto Schily"... roflmao... what a joke. Schily is easily among the most despised politicians in Germany due to his arrogance and US-vassal-like behaviour.
Andaluciae
26-04-2005, 17:29
Ein Deutscher']Really eh.. The "honourable Otto Schily"... roflmao... what a joke. Schily is easily among the most despised politicians in Germany due to his arrogance and US-vassal-like behaviour.
Otto Schily...I don't totally know who that is...




*hint*enlighten me*hint*
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 17:36
Otto Schily...I don't totally know who that is...




*hint*enlighten me*hint*
He's the German Minister for the Interior. Some sort of spy-constitution-watchdog-privacy-invader all in one. He's good in misrepresenting our "constitution" or ignoring it altogether for the creation of the perfect police state with state surveillance everywhere and at all times. He wants the see-through citizen in Germany and total control over the people by the police state.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/image/0,1587,1197916_6,00.jpg
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 17:37
Ein Deutscher']Really eh.. The "honourable Otto Schily"... roflmao... what a joke. Schily is easily among the most despised politicians in Germany due to his arrogance and US-vassal-like behaviour.

Then how did he get elected?
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 17:39
Then how did he get elected?
Ministers are not elected. They are appointed by the chancellor.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 17:41
Ein Deutscher']Ministers are not elected. They are appointed by the chancellor.
If he's so unpopular, why was he appointed then?
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 17:46
If he's so unpopular, why was he appointed then?
That's not subject of the thread, so let's get back to the topic, which is the fact that the US military sets murderers free after a biased "investigation", which brings as a result the obvious - the US are supposedly not guilty of murdering the Italian agent Calipari or wrongly shooting the car in which Guiliana Sgrena was being transported to Baghdad airport.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 17:47
Ein Deutscher']That's not subject of the thread, so let's get back to the topic, which is the fact that the US military sets murderers free after a biased "investigation", which brings as a result the obvious - the US are supposedly not guilty of murdering the Italian agent Calipari or wrongly shooting the car in which Guiliana Sgrena was being transported to Baghdad airport.

It would appear that the Italians agree with the US - they were also part of the investigation.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 18:06
Ein Deutscher']That's not subject of the thread, so let's get back to the topic, which is the fact that the US military sets murderers free after a biased "investigation", which brings as a result the obvious - the US are supposedly not guilty of murdering the Italian agent Calipari or wrongly shooting the car in which Guiliana Sgrena was being transported to Baghdad airport.


Lets not pretend you're really concerned about "bias". You are quite content when it suits your purposes. The difference is, you have a different name for it when it suits you. If it favors the US, its bias. If it favors anyone opposing the US, its truthful and pure.
Dadave
26-04-2005, 18:23
How would you know? You obviously can't identify it when it stands in front of you and slaps you across the face.
von twit thinks all us americans are a bunch of cowboy's and ride rough shod over the world.that won't change.
i guess all the good we try to do is for nothing and we should just sit home and let the world just sink into the cesspool it was..remember ww1/ww2
yea we contrived those wars so we could shoot our guns and yell yeehaa.
he better start studying a little harder..maybe some world history,u know,like how we stopped the genocidal germans from slaughtering innocent children,or anyone in there way,and the french would be waving swastica's too...oh that was a generalization,sorry,only leftie whiney euro's can genalize about countries...your a tard von. :sniper: lol
[NS]Ein Deutscher
26-04-2005, 18:49
von twit thinks all us americans are a bunch of cowboy's and ride rough shod over the world.that won't change.
i guess all the good we try to do is for nothing and we should just sit home and let the world just sink into the cesspool it was..remember ww1/ww2
yea we contrived those wars so we could shoot our guns and yell yeehaa.
he better start studying a little harder..maybe some world history,u know,like how we stopped the genocidal germans from slaughtering innocent children,or anyone in there way,and the french would be waving swastica's too...oh that was a generalization,sorry,only leftie whiney euro's can genalize about countries...your a tard von. :sniper: lol
Woah... horrible spelling, arguing against strawmen, incorrect punctuation and personal insults - all in one post. Good job there, really. /sarcasm
The Downmarching Void
26-04-2005, 19:06
Why can't the American military just face the facts: Most of it's soldiers are good, diligent and professional in carrying out their duty, but there is a minority of soldiers who are trigger happy inbred morons who shouldn't be let near a water-pistol, let alone a gun.

What is so difficult in just admitting these guys and and all the other "Friendly fire" soldiers did WRONG and should have their trigger fingers AMPUTATED.
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 19:08
Why can't the American military just face the facts: Most of it's soldiers are good, diligent and professional in carrying out their duty, but there is a minority of soldiers who are trigger happy inbred morons who shouldn't be let near a water-pistol, let alone a gun.

What is so difficult in just admitting these guys and and all the other "Friendly fire" soldiers did WRONG and should have their trigger fingers AMPUTATED.

In this case, they were following orders.

In fact, if they had truly been following orders, and had been as trigger happy as you say, the car would have been destroyed at the first check point and all the occupants killed, rather than allowed to proceed through several checkpoints until a decision was made to light up the car.
McLeod03
26-04-2005, 19:08
von twit thinks all us americans are a bunch of cowboy's and ride rough shod over the world.that won't change.
i guess all the good we try to do is for nothing and we should just sit home and let the world just sink into the cesspool it was..remember ww1/ww2
yea we contrived those wars so we could shoot our guns and yell yeehaa.
he better start studying a little harder..maybe some world history,u know,like how we stopped the genocidal germans from slaughtering innocent children,or anyone in there way,and the french would be waving swastica's too...oh that was a generalization,sorry,only leftie whiney euro's can genalize about countries...your a tard von. :sniper: lol

1) Try going to school somewhen, could be useful.
2) Had it been an American in the car, shot up by Italians, there would have been outrage at a not guilty verdict.
3) There is more evidence of US blue-on-blue incidents than any other nation in the 20th and 21st centuries.
4) It wasn't the Germans. It was the Nazis. There is a difference, surprisingly. You didn't stop the Russians, or the Rwandans. You haven't stopped the Sudanese.
5) As per usual, in a hollywoodised fashion, you are making it out that the US won both wars single handed. Learn some history, and you'll see that's bullshit.
6) Stop flaming.
New Sans
26-04-2005, 19:25
Why can't the American military just face the facts: Most of it's soldiers are good, diligent and professional in carrying out their duty, but there is a minority of soldiers who are trigger happy inbred morons who shouldn't be let near a water-pistol, let alone a gun.

What is so difficult in just admitting these guys and and all the other "Friendly fire" soldiers did WRONG and should have their trigger fingers AMPUTATED.

Isn't this the way with most military forces though? Once country can hardly be expected to have every trigger happy loony in their armed forces. Each country has people who should be in a nice padded white room rather then carrying out military orders.
The Downmarching Void
26-04-2005, 19:27
I'm prone to doubt ANYTHING any American Military inquiry concludes, but thats because I'm Canadian, and all to familiar with their slap-on-the-wrist /ignore reality type decisions. In this case however, I'm inclined to beleive the situation unfolded more or less as the US soldiers perceived.

My beef is of a more general nature. The US military has long history or spectacular disaters written of as friendly fire, chalked up to "an honest mistake" Two US Airforce pilots hopped up on gov't issued crystal meth blew up a group of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, killing several, maiming more. All throughout that incident, the audio and video footage made it clear the pilots disobeyed a direct order, not once, but many times. They should both have been stripped of rank, dishonorably discharged and tattooed "asshole" across their foreheads. Instead, they weren't even court-martialed.

That was far from the first time that type of occured. Not once has the US Military just owned up to it.

If there had been greater culpability and more openess about these types of incidents, I think people would be more prone to beleive the conculsions of the investigation in the case at hand. Despite the fact that this incident happened in a campaign far more dangerous than the clean-up of Afghanistan, people still equate the two incidents. For better or worse, the US have no one but themselves to blame for how the rest of the world responded to the findings of this inquiry.



peace n' respect
Whispering Legs
26-04-2005, 19:30
It's not a "friendly fire" incident. The target was a civilian vehicle (which car bombers use - they don't paint the word "JIHAD" on the outside in English).

None of the people in the car were in a military uniform.

The soldiers in question followed the rules of engagement - orders specifying when, where, how, etc., they should fire.

So how is that a friendly fire incident? Were the US soldiers, who had been attacked by car bombs at that location before, supposed to have magical X-ray vision so that they would know which cars were threats and which ones weren't?

Do you suppose that they're right - that the car blew through three prior checkpoints before reaching the one where they shot at the car?
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 20:25
If he's so unpopular, why was he appointed then?
He wasn't as unpopular as he is now when he started out.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 20:27
Ein Deutscher']Really eh.. The "honourable Otto Schily"... roflmao... what a joke. Schily is easily among the most despised politicians in Germany due to his arrogance and US-vassal-like behaviour.
Ah. Give it a few more months and Fischer will have caught up with him. Maybe.
New Shiron
26-04-2005, 20:47
Ah. Give it a few more months and Fischer will have caught up with him. Maybe.

so both of you become politically active and use your democratic rights to vote against them, or campaign against them, or even run against them.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 20:50
so both of you become politically active and use your democratic rights to vote against them, or campaign against them, or even run against them.
You don't vote for or against a secretary. They are appointed by the chancellor. And running against them is also not a possibility. Since you would have to be a party member. For starters. Education and degree's however are not an issue on the other hand. To which Fischer is living proof.
New Shiron
26-04-2005, 20:50
It's not a "friendly fire" incident. The target was a civilian vehicle (which car bombers use - they don't paint the word "JIHAD" on the outside in English).

None of the people in the car were in a military uniform.

The soldiers in question followed the rules of engagement - orders specifying when, where, how, etc., they should fire.

So how is that a friendly fire incident? Were the US soldiers, who had been attacked by car bombs at that location before, supposed to have magical X-ray vision so that they would know which cars were threats and which ones weren't?

Do you suppose that they're right - that the car blew through three prior checkpoints before reaching the one where they shot at the car?

the Italians not signing off on the investigation sure didn't help our cause much though. Damn that was an unlucky incident. I am certain there was no planning involved, it was merely some relatively trigger happy soldiers responding under pressure using the rules of engagement that were given, and possibly some poor planning or judgenment by the Italians security officers.

We will probably never know that actual events objectively, as both sides are going to stick to the story they have for a number of reasons.

At least she (the ransomed hostage) wasn't killed, so it could have been even worse.
New Shiron
26-04-2005, 20:51
You don't vote for or against a secretary. They are appointed by the chancellor. And running against them is also not a possibility. Since you would have to be a party member. Education and degree's however are not an issue on the other hand. To which Fischer is living proof.

so you ensure your party wins and a new Chancellor is selected
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 21:00
You don't vote for or against a secretary. They are appointed by the chancellor. And running against them is also not a possibility. Since you would have to be a party member. For starters. Education and degree's however are not an issue on the other hand. To which Fischer is living proof.


Is it like here-appointees usually were strong supporters of the appointer and when he attains a position, he pays people back with positions, contracts, etc..?
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 21:01
so you ensure your party wins and a new Chancellor is selected
Problem with that is that both major parties, social democrats and christian democrats, are both equally incompetent. Both are more interested in pointing out the others faults, ignoring their own, rather then fix the problems.
The christian democrats lead by Angela Merkel suck US ass as a hobby.
As you could see during the last carneval where a a bandwagon with a Bush puppet with his pants down had a ladder leading up to his anus which Angela Merkel climbed with a big smile on her face.
When I say they suck US ass I mean that they are pissed that no German soldiers in bodybags were send back from Iraq.

The social democrats on the other hand do their very best to make Germany a bigger Turk nation then Turkey.
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 21:03
Is it like here-appointees usually were strong supporters of the appointer and when he attains a position, he pays people back with positions, contracts, etc..?
Yeah. Most likely. Fischer of the Green party is the foreign secretary. Without the Greens the social democrats would have probably lost or tied the last election. And without Fischer no one would have voted for the Greens.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 21:15
Yeah. Most likely. Fischer of the Green party is the foreign secretary. Without the Greens the social democrats would have probably lost or tied the last election. And without Fischer no one would have voted for the Greens.


I'm afraid that cannot be avoided, no matter what country you're in, or what type of government you have. Whenever someone needs support, they are going to owe afterwards. Its a shame that the payback will often conflict with the person's original stance on a subject. So I vote for someone who's values I tend to agree with, but a huge company or union contributes a truckload of cash or influences a block of people to vote that way-My guy is elected and bingo! All of a sudden, his convictions change a little, his message is diluted and his friends an relatives are all given cushy/do-little jobs. Its politics. Its scummy.And its so widespread, there is almost no way to change or prevent it.
The South Islands
26-04-2005, 21:26
Oh Hell!

Lets just use some bio weapons on the US troops, and in the United states, and kill everyone!

If Amerikkka did not exist, everyone would be better off. :rolleyes:
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 21:35
I'm afraid that cannot be avoided, no matter what country you're in, or what type of government you have. Whenever someone needs support, they are going to owe afterwards. Its a shame that the payback will often conflict with the person's original stance on a subject. So I vote for someone who's values I tend to agree with, but a huge company or union contributes a truckload of cash or influences a block of people to vote that way-My guy is elected and bingo! All of a sudden, his convictions change a little, his message is diluted and his friends an relatives are all given cushy/do-little jobs. Its politics. Its scummy.And its so widespread, there is almost no way to change or prevent it.
I wouldn't mind so much if they at least tried to do their job properly instead of just face the opposition for a pissing contest.
Sumamba Buwhan
26-04-2005, 21:35
Hey Dummy, it was a joint US Italian investigation that cleared the soldiers....Note to self, when driving to an armed checkpoint in Iraq, slow down.


actually no it wasn't - also try using some tact

it was the American Preliminary investigation that cleared them and Italy is not accepting the results.

Those in teh car say they were not speeding toward the checkpoint and were fired on without warning.

I don't know what is true and don't pretend to make any assumptions on the matter.
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 21:37
Oh Hell!

Lets just use some bio weapons on the US troops, and in the United states, and kill everyone!

If Amerikkka did not exist, everyone would be better off. :rolleyes:


Its likely you wont live to see the day America no longer exists. Nor will your children's children. So you may as well get used to the lower standard of living we are forcing you to live.
Thanks for your intelligent and witty repartee!!
Carnivorous Lickers
26-04-2005, 21:41
I wouldn't mind so much if they at least tried to do their job properly instead of just face the opposition for a pissing contest.


They may go into it well intentioned and honest, but the nature of the beast too often muddies and perverts that. it would be refreshing if career politicians could be replaced with average persons from time to time-people without pre-concieved notions, people that werent practiced in the "tricks of the trade." Imagine good things actually being accomplished?
Von Witzleben
26-04-2005, 21:50
They may go into it well intentioned and honest
*moan* Someone goes into politics honest and with the best intentions? Sorry. But I have a hard time even imagining someone like that.
it would be refreshing if career politicians could be replaced with average persons from time to time-people without pre-concieved notions, people that werent practiced in the "tricks of the trade."
It would be more entertaining if politicians who perform badly would have to meet eachother in gladiatorial combat to the death. Now if that doesn't keep them honest nothing will.
Imagine good things actually being accomplished?
Yeah. We can't have that.
Lancamore
26-04-2005, 22:05
The French are there with a UN mandate. Unlike the bloodsucking American fiends they didn't invade the country under a guise of lies.
Plus they are our friends and allies.
I suggest you read up on the French colonialization of Algeria, along with most of Africa. About 1,000,000 people died in Algeria's war for independence from France. There were reports of French using helicopters and planes to eradicate villages they could not reach with mechanized forces in attempts to destroy bases of support for the FLN.
Lancamore
26-04-2005, 22:09
So you were in combats in a desert and were shot at? yep, and as every UK soldier has to account for every time he discharges his weapon and for rounds fired I'm sure he had to explain what he did to some one. Unlike the system you were under when you were out there.
This is not the same as an aircraft seeing a target and failing to verify from it's position of safety if the target is a threat or a friendly. Same as when US pilot shot down a UK helicopter (a chinook of all things) before they bothered seeing if it was a friendly. they appear to shoot anything not imediatly recognised as US. Oh yes and the air attack of Friendly Kurdish soldiers and press in the North of Iraq.
You try running an operation as complicated as a war in an even more complex environment and then tell me how you managed to make no mistakes.
Frangland
26-04-2005, 22:14
They may go into it well intentioned and honest, but the nature of the beast too often muddies and perverts that. it would be refreshing if career politicians could be replaced with average persons from time to time-people without pre-concieved notions, people that werent practiced in the "tricks of the trade." Imagine good things actually being accomplished?

TERM LIMITS!
Lancamore
26-04-2005, 22:44
Ein Deutscher']

snip


Interestingly, your xenophobia would be frowned upon here in the "unqualified, inexperienced, too young, culturally inept, morally and socially backwards" United States.

Feel free to object to our policies, current and historic. Please refrain from disrespecting our culture and our people as a whole.
Gauthier
26-04-2005, 22:54
So what's today's lessons boys and girls?

1) America can do no wrong.
2) Europe (especially France) can do no right.

:rolleyes:
IImperIIum of man
26-04-2005, 23:17
is anybody aware that Guiliana Sgrena is a reporter for a communist newspaper in italy and is vehemently anti-war and anti-US..it leads me to have certain reservations about the validity of her version of events

Originally Posted by The South Islands
Oh Hell!


If Amerikkka did not exist, everyone would be better off.
and we would probably all be speaking german ;)
31
26-04-2005, 23:21
is anybody aware that Guiliana Sgrena is a reporter for a communist newspaper in italy and is vehemently anti-war and anti-US..it leads me to have certain reservations about the validity of her version of events


and we would probably all be speaking german ;)

Yes, people are well aware of it but as we have been taught by movies and tv again and again leftist crusaders are above question, much like enviromentalist crusaders. All words from their mouths are the truth because they oppose our capitalist oppressors. She would never lie to support her postion! She would never lie, how dare you even think that!! HATE CRIME!! HATE CRIME!!! ;)
Beerguzzelingmaniacs
26-04-2005, 23:34
is anybody aware that Guiliana Sgrena is a reporter for a communist newspaper in italy and is vehemently anti-war and anti-US..it leads me to have certain reservations about the validity of her version of events
Oh finally. I was starting to worry already.
Teranius
26-04-2005, 23:42
Let's not forget that Italy paid millions for her release, money the terrorists are most likely using to buy bombs to kill more U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
31
26-04-2005, 23:48
Let's not forget that Italy paid millions for her release, money the terrorists are most likely using to buy bombs to kill more U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqis.

Never forget that the life of one communist journalist is worth more than the lives of any number of Iraqi civilians and evil US oppressor mercenary soldiers. She is leading the valiant fight against all that is evil in the world! I mean com'on people, she's Italian!!! And communist!! What more proof do you need? ;)
Sumamba Buwhan
27-04-2005, 00:52
It's painfully obvious that the troops killed her on purpose knowing she is that damned communist reporter that doesn't support Pres. Bush, since most of the troops are just bloodlusting slackjawed rednecks that love to shoot their guns and hate anything and anyone that doesnt parrot their views 100%. How's that for ASSuming?

Fact is that we don't know the truth. Only what the people there told us and there are conflicting views on that.

The official version seems pretty wierd to me personally. Why would they charge a checkpoint? Having a bit of fun in a warzone? Maybe they were smokign pot and thought the flashing lights were pretty. Perhaps they just hate Americans and thought they don't need to live by our stinking rules. Do you think that they actually believed that they could get past without stoping? Maybe they were just tired of living...

The thing is - it doesn't make sense that they would speed toward a US checkpoint. ONe thing I could think of is that maybe they were already being shot at from down the road a bit by insurgent snipers so they wanted to get to the US checkpoint in a hurry to be saved but that wouldnt make sense because they would have said so.

There should be video footage of every single checkpoint encounter after this fiasco.
Lancamore
27-04-2005, 02:43
Why can't the American military just face the facts: Most of it's soldiers are good, diligent and professional in carrying out their duty, but there is a minority of soldiers who are trigger happy inbred morons who shouldn't be let near a water-pistol, let alone a gun.

What is so difficult in just admitting these guys and and all the other "Friendly fire" soldiers did WRONG and should have their trigger fingers AMPUTATED.
If I follow your logic correctly, anyone who ever made a mistake that resulted in unfortunate consequenses should be severely punished. Yep, that accounts for juuust about everyone!

You see, when a sales manager makes a big mistake, he might get fired. When a computer scientist makes a big mistake, he might have screwed up a program for a couple thousand people. When a soldier makes a big mistake, he is hated by a good chunk of the planet, called "trigger happy" and becomes the focus of alot of international tension. Give them a break. They make mistakes too.

All the crap about the US being stupid and "trigger happy" because we have more friendly fire incidents is just that... crap. YES, we DO have more friendly fire incidents than other countries. That's because our military deployment is always much larger than those of other countries. Take a course on statistics.
Lancamore
27-04-2005, 03:03
Heres an argument I don't think has been brought up yet.

It is impossible that the troops were ordered to fire on the journalist's car, because nobody knew she had been released, let alone that she was approaching the airport in a car. Both sides have made it clear that the Italian government didn't tell the US government anything. Besides, how would we have been able to pick out the right car? It was unmarked, and the people inside were not in uniform.
Pure Perfection
27-04-2005, 03:11
You know. I believe you.

This has probably been said, but Germany has such a noble past. A past of such great things.

Wait, nevermind.
Boodicka
27-04-2005, 03:37
von twit thinks all us americans are a bunch of cowboy's and ride rough shod over the world.
I could give you 87 reasons why US Governments are not internationally esteemed, but it's an individual's blind faith in those governments, without consulting historical evidence, that diminishes my respect for that individual. No-one here assumes that all Americans agree with Bush's international killing spree.
Have some clicky: http://www.isometry.com/usahate.html
Rudabaga
27-04-2005, 04:07
this isint realy all that seriouse but comparison between us and Nazi germany and hitler and bush

Germany invades poland claiming they were a threat -US invades iraq claming they were a threat

Nazis' were extremly nationalistic- republicans are extremly nationalistic

george bush was in the army- hilter was in the army

georg bush likes dogs -hitler liked dogs

george bush at one point in time probly wore khakis- hitler wore khakis

bush was electted in a dogy ellection- hitler ellected in a dodgy ellection

Hitler claimed he was a pure german- bush claims hes pure americain(probly)

hitler could read- bush is suspected of having that capability

Nazi's thought physical fitness was very important so do americains

my conclusion you can make connections to evrything hell heres a conection between bush and lennin they both belive/ed in fredom and equality.
Lancamore
27-04-2005, 04:15
Aw, come on! This was a good thread, with some hints of real debate. We don't need senseless Bush- and America-bashing. :(
Karas
27-04-2005, 07:16
Of course I would be, and Sgrena should consider her self lucky she isn't. That's the point, you blow through a checkpoint at a high rate of speed, you will get shot. Now, go on and worry about something meaningful. Maybe your country's double digit unemployment, declining GDP, and neo Nazis.

In their defense, it is easier to shoot at a still target than it is to shoot at one moving at a high rate a speed. The chances that they should hav ewent through the checkpoint with fairly little damage were fairly good. They probably would have if it was just assault rifles shooting at them in the dark, insted of a .50 machine gun.

There was no way for the US soldiers to be sure that they weren't terrotists. At the same time, there was no way for them to be sure that the checkpoints weren't really terrorist ambush zones. Take the uniforms off dead soldiers and set up an apparently friendly checkpoint so that the enemy will let down their guard. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Both sides played the numbers and erred on the safe side. The people in the car were probably terrorists and would have possibly killed a lot of people. The people at the checkpoint were possibly terrorists and probably wouldn't have hit them. Both sides were wrong. It happens.
Von Witzleben
27-04-2005, 11:53
This has probably been said, but Germany has such a noble past. A past of such great things.
Precisely. For example Paul Ehrlich. The father of chemo-therapy.
Portu Cale MK3
27-04-2005, 13:34
The Italians that were in the US led investigation of this incident DID NOT signed the report, because they consider it incomplete. There are lots of questions that need to be answered:

1) Was the car speeding or not? No conclusive, credible answer has been given until now.

2) Did the driver respected the warnings that the Americans claimed to have given to him or not?

3) Was there enough communication between the Italian and American leadership concerning the rescue or not?

We all know the American reply. The journalist and surviving Italian Secret Agent say this is not true. The Italians did not bought the US version. So.. much remains unsaid. People are jumping into conclusions too fast.

Offcourse, since the US as no credibility, this is a good explanation to why they are doing so.
31
27-04-2005, 13:55
The Italians that were in the US led investigation of this incident DID NOT signed the report, because they consider it incomplete. There are lots of questions that need to be answered:

1) Was the car speeding or not? No conclusive, credible answer has been given until now.

2) Did the driver respected the warnings that the Americans claimed to have given to him or not?

3) Was there enough communication between the Italian and American leadership concerning the rescue or not?

We all know the American reply. The journalist and surviving Italian Secret Agent say this is not true. The Italians did not bought the US version. So.. much remains unsaid. People are jumping into conclusions too fast.

Offcourse, since the US as no credibility, this is a good explanation to why they are doing so.

Pretty much nobody in the world has credibility. In the end we are all comparing black kettles and saying they are made of crystal. EUians claim moral superiority, USians do the same, Canadians whisper from the sidelines (that'll get their blood up).
Whispering Legs
27-04-2005, 14:05
The Italians that were in the US led investigation of this incident DID NOT signed the report, because they consider it incomplete. There are lots of questions that need to be answered:

1) Was the car speeding or not? No conclusive, credible answer has been given until now.

2) Did the driver respected the warnings that the Americans claimed to have given to him or not?

3) Was there enough communication between the Italian and American leadership concerning the rescue or not?

We all know the American reply. The journalist and surviving Italian Secret Agent say this is not true. The Italians did not bought the US version. So.. much remains unsaid. People are jumping into conclusions too fast.

Offcourse, since the US as no credibility, this is a good explanation to why they are doing so.


It is a fact that they passed three checkpoints without stopping prior to getting to the last checkpoint, where they were fired on.

There were signs in English and Arabic at each checkpoint saying STOP.

The car never stopped - not at any of the previous checkpoints.

Even if you believe the Italian journalist - that no one called to them to stop and no one waved at them to stop - why did the car continue?

If you assume that no one in this story has any credibility, you're still left with the signage and the FACT that the car did not obey the signs.

If you then add the rules of engagement, which dictate that any car that fails to stop at a checkpoint must be fired upon, you'll find that despite opinions to the contrary, the soldiers at the first three checkpoints exercised restraint to the point of violating orders - it was only at the last checkpoint where orders were followed. And the orders are in no way illegal.

We might also add that if the Americans truly meant to kill them, they would be quite dead, and none of the people who survived the initial firing would have been taken to a hospital.

How are the American soldiers at the checkpoint supposed to know that "here comes the Italian journalist" when she's on the floorboard of the car with the Italian agent on top of her (that's her testimony)?

How are the American soldiers supposed to react to unknown civilian vehicles containing people who are in civilian clothes, when it keeps moving through the checkpoint without stopping? That's exactly what car bombers did at that very checkpoint several times before. Should American soldiers just sit there and hope that no civilian car containing people who can't obey signs will come by?

Tell me.
Carnivorous Lickers
27-04-2005, 14:33
It is a fact that they passed three checkpoints without stopping prior to getting to the last checkpoint, where they were fired on.

There were signs in English and Arabic at each checkpoint saying STOP.

The car never stopped - not at any of the previous checkpoints.

Even if you believe the Italian journalist - that no one called to them to stop and no one waved at them to stop - why did the car continue?

If you assume that no one in this story has any credibility, you're still left with the signage and the FACT that the car did not obey the signs.

If you then add the rules of engagement, which dictate that any car that fails to stop at a checkpoint must be fired upon, you'll find that despite opinions to the contrary, the soldiers at the first three checkpoints exercised restraint to the point of violating orders - it was only at the last checkpoint where orders were followed. And the orders are in no way illegal.

We might also add that if the Americans truly meant to kill them, they would be quite dead, and none of the people who survived the initial firing would have been taken to a hospital.

How are the American soldiers at the checkpoint supposed to know that "here comes the Italian journalist" when she's on the floorboard of the car with the Italian agent on top of her (that's her testimony)?

How are the American soldiers supposed to react to unknown civilian vehicles containing people who are in civilian clothes, when it keeps moving through the checkpoint without stopping? That's exactly what car bombers did at that very checkpoint several times before. Should American soldiers just sit there and hope that no civilian car containing people who can't obey signs will come by?

Tell me.

Its quite clear that the Italians, having paid a ransom for her release, wanted to keep this whole thing quiet. Maybe they were under the impression they would be able to pass a checkpoint without scrutiny, thus avoiding having to expose the whole story. Were they so relieved to have gained her release from the insurgents, maybe worried that the insurgents wanted to kill them anyway-maybe pursuing them? We will never know the truth there-we will never know the real reason they tried to circumvent the purpose of the checkpoints.
What we do know is- they tried to defeat the checkpoints. They had no previous plan with the US stating they would be carrying out this operation.
The US soldiers that shot the car stopped it effectively as they are supposed to and didnt "spray and pray" as they are so often accused of. There was certainly restraint and proffesionalism on their part-evidenced in the fact that everyone in the car wasnt killed, totally riddled with bullets.
The soldiers that shot this car are not happy they wound up having to shoot what turned out to be our friends.
OceanDrive
27-04-2005, 15:27
How are the American soldiers supposed to react to unknown civilian vehicles containing people who are in civilian clothes..."they went tru 3 consecutive checkpoints...on the same road"

and they could have been killed at any of them...the same way US soldiers kill civilean families with civilean clothes...they kill them because they perceive them as threats...

I thing these Deathtraps (UScheckpoints) are very dangerous...they are tragedies waiting to happen...and they happen on a daily basis...civileans are killed all the time...
so my question is what is the need for 4 checkpoint in the same road???

Hell, what is the need for Chekpoints at all?


...If Iraq was a free sovereign people...most of these Death-Traps (US checkpoints) woud be illegal, exept for the checkpoint at the gates of the US embassy...and leased Army bases...if they want foreign bases.
Whispering Legs
27-04-2005, 15:33
"they went tru 3 consecutive checkpoints...on the same road"

and they could have been killed at any of them...the same way US soldiers kill civilean families with civilean clothes...they kill them because they perceive them as threats...

I thing these Deathtraps (UScheckpoints) are very dangerous...they are tragedies waiting to happen...and they happen on a daily basis...civileans are killed all the time...
so my question is what is the need for 4 checkpoint in the same road???

Hell, what is the need for Chekpoints at all?


...If Iraq was a free sovereign people...most of these Death-Traps (US checkpoints) woud be illegal, exept maybe for the checkpoint at the gates of the US embassy.


It's the road to the airport. It's a long road through a fairly unfriendly neighborhood. The US would rather have someone blow up their car bomb at a checkpoint in that neighborhood (as they do with great frequency) than to get all the way to the airport and blow it up there.

Putting multiple checkpoints gives them a chance to exercise some restraint - i.e., not shooting right away, but waiting until it really looks like the vehicle has no intention of stopping.
Carnivorous Lickers
27-04-2005, 17:16
"they went tru 3 consecutive checkpoints...on the same road"

and they could have been killed at any of them...the same way US soldiers kill civilean families with civilean clothes...they kill them because they perceive them as threats...

I thing these Deathtraps (UScheckpoints) are very dangerous...they are tragedies waiting to happen...and they happen on a daily basis...civileans are killed all the time...
so my question is what is the need for 4 checkpoint in the same road???

Hell, what is the need for Chekpoints at all?


...If Iraq was a free sovereign people...most of these Death-Traps (US checkpoints) woud be illegal, exept for the checkpoint at the gates of the US embassy...and leased Army bases...if they want foreign bases.


Our soldiers need the target practice, especially in the area of hosing moving targets. [sarcastic]
Sumamba Buwhan
27-04-2005, 17:19
It is a fact that they passed three checkpoints without stopping prior to getting to the last checkpoint, where they were fired on.

There were signs in English and Arabic at each checkpoint saying STOP.

The car never stopped - not at any of the previous checkpoints.

Even if you believe the Italian journalist - that no one called to them to stop and no one waved at them to stop - why did the car continue?

If you assume that no one in this story has any credibility, you're still left with the signage and the FACT that the car did not obey the signs.

If you then add the rules of engagement, which dictate that any car that fails to stop at a checkpoint must be fired upon, you'll find that despite opinions to the contrary, the soldiers at the first three checkpoints exercised restraint to the point of violating orders - it was only at the last checkpoint where orders were followed. And the orders are in no way illegal.

We might also add that if the Americans truly meant to kill them, they would be quite dead, and none of the people who survived the initial firing would have been taken to a hospital.

How are the American soldiers at the checkpoint supposed to know that "here comes the Italian journalist" when she's on the floorboard of the car with the Italian agent on top of her (that's her testimony)?

How are the American soldiers supposed to react to unknown civilian vehicles containing people who are in civilian clothes, when it keeps moving through the checkpoint without stopping? That's exactly what car bombers did at that very checkpoint several times before. Should American soldiers just sit there and hope that no civilian car containing people who can't obey signs will come by?

Tell me.


Were you there? How do you know what the truth is? Because that's what the Americans said? I think its rather silly to believe that someone who is trying to keep themselves alive in a warzone would speed toward or through a US checkpoint knowing there would most likely be deadly consequences.

I would only believe it if they were filming each checkpoint encounter, and I saw what really happened for myself. It just seems higly unlikely that anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. The official story just doesnt add up.
Whispering Legs
27-04-2005, 17:33
Were you there? How do you know what the truth is? Because that's what the Americans said? I think its rather silly to believe that someone who is trying to keep themselves alive in a warzone would speed toward or through a US checkpoint knowing there would most likely be deadly consequences.

I would only believe it if they were filming each checkpoint encounter, and I saw what really happened for myself. It just seems higly unlikely that anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. The official story just doesnt add up.

There are three checkpoints prior to the one she was shot at. They all have signs. I've talked to some of the soldiers who manned the first checkpoint. The signs have been up for months.

The car did not stop at any of the checkpoints - it stopped only after it was shot at #4.

It adds up. Why doesn't it? You have soldiers who have authorization to kill starting at checkpoint 1, but they observe the car continue to move, and continue to warn each subsequent checkpoint (something they testified to), and an officer gave the order to fire at the last checkpoint - it seemed to them that the car really had no intention of stopping.

Why doesn't that make sense? Does it make more sense to think that they were deliberately trying to kill her? If they were, why did they send her to the hospital by US helicopter? Why did the tank use its lightest machinegun instead of using its 120mm cannon?

One shot with the cannon, and they wouldn't even have found the bodies.

The conspiracy bullshit doesn't make any sense.
Sumamba Buwhan
27-04-2005, 17:37
It makes sense that they would shoot at a car that isn't stopping sure. I am not saying otherwise. What I am saying that doesnt make sense is that the Italians woulndt stop at the checkpoints. I'm pretty sure I made that point clear in my initial post.

I'm not saying I know what the truth of the matter is and can only speculate. It is really tough for me to believe that anyone with half a brain would speed thru a deadly US checkpoint unless they were suicidal.
Whispering Legs
27-04-2005, 17:39
It makes sense that they would shoot at a car that isn't stopping sure. I am not saying otherwise. What I am saying that doesnt make sense is that the Italians woulndt stop at the checkpoints. I'm pretty sure I made that point clear in my initial post.

I'm not saying I know what the truth of the matter is and can only speculate. It is really tough for me to believe that anyone with half a brain would speed thru a deadly US checkpoint unless they were suicidal.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

The driver was fucking stupid.
Sumamba Buwhan
27-04-2005, 17:44
It makes perfect sense to me.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

The driver was fucking stupid.

Whatever tickles your pickle. Sometimes I like proof before Ibelieve something, ya know? Assumptions are fine if you are into that I guess.
Lancamore
27-04-2005, 21:43
Assuming there WAS a conspiracy, and assuming that the soldiers made a mistake by NOT using overwhelming force on the car and NOT acting to hide the car and bodies....

How did the military know that particular car contained their "target"?

Hell, how did the military know she was coming at all? The Italian government didn't inform us about the release.

Assuming there were orders to kill the journalist, why didn't they just quietly kill her after she survived the incident?

In my mind, it is 100% impossible that the shooting was part of a deliberate attempt to target the journalist. She says that she was targeted. That only diminishes her credibility further in my eyes.

Do you really think a vehement anti-US communist would emerge from this and say "Yes, we were speeding and no we didn't stop. We made a stupid mistake. The US is not to blame." This is her opportunity to denounce the US in front of the entire world, something she has been trying to do for all her life.
Lancamore
27-04-2005, 21:45
"they went tru 3 consecutive checkpoints...on the same road"

and they could have been killed at any of them...the same way US soldiers kill civilean families with civilean clothes...they kill them because they perceive them as threats...

I thing these Deathtraps (UScheckpoints) are very dangerous...they are tragedies waiting to happen...and they happen on a daily basis...civileans are killed all the time...
so my question is what is the need for 4 checkpoint in the same road???

Hell, what is the need for Chekpoints at all?


...If Iraq was a free sovereign people...most of these Death-Traps (US checkpoints) woud be illegal, exept for the checkpoint at the gates of the US embassy...and leased Army bases...if they want foreign bases.
I'm sure the Iraqi people would appreciate it if we let suicide bombers drive freely into any part of the country aside from the US embassy. Really. Those checkpoints were a darned nuisance!
Cadillac-Gage
27-04-2005, 21:55
Whatever tickles your pickle. Sometimes I like proof before Ibelieve something, ya know? Assumptions are fine if you are into that I guess.

then take note: either training standards have degraded to "Untrained" since I was a soldier, or they weren't targeting the journalist in an operation.

Put it this way: if Sgrena were the target, she, and everyone else in that car, would be dead, nobody would have heard about it from her side of the story, because she would have been "Killed by Terrorists before we could get there".
American Soldiers are some of the best shots in the world, and they've got plenty of bullets. Those little cars aren't that frikking tough, and it wouldn't take more than a single captured RPG-7 to convert her into a celebrity casualty of the Islamofascist extremists (and a pointed lesson about not-dealing-with-terrorists).

She is not dead, she is alive. Therefore, it wasn't an assassination, her driver probably tried to run the checkpoint instead of stopping. Why an Italian Security Agent might do something that obviously and catastrophically stupid raises a battery of questions about what they might have been doing on that trip. IF the Bradley is parked on the road in front of you, and guys in tricolor Desert Camo with M-16's are waving for you to stop, you stop. This isn't Rome and the Via Appia, imitating Mario Andretti will get you killed, not admired.
Lancamore
27-04-2005, 21:58
In their defense, it is easier to shoot at a still target than it is to shoot at one moving at a high rate a speed. The chances that they should hav ewent through the checkpoint with fairly little damage were fairly good. They probably would have if it was just assault rifles shooting at them in the dark, insted of a .50 machine gun.

There was no way for the US soldiers to be sure that they weren't terrotists. At the same time, there was no way for them to be sure that the checkpoints weren't really terrorist ambush zones. Take the uniforms off dead soldiers and set up an apparently friendly checkpoint so that the enemy will let down their guard. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Both sides played the numbers and erred on the safe side. The people in the car were probably terrorists and would have possibly killed a lot of people. The people at the checkpoint were possibly terrorists and probably wouldn't have hit them. Both sides were wrong. It happens.

Uh... The US doesn't leave its casualties lying around. We recover every man. If your hypothetical terrorists had US uniforms they wouldn't have got them from dead soldiers.

More importantly, where would the terrorists manning the checkpoint have gotten their hands on a tank/armored vehicle?
12345543211
27-04-2005, 22:14
I cant believe your saying its our fault, what if the soldiers didnt shoot and the car had a bomb in it? What than?
Frangland
27-04-2005, 22:21
I cant believe your saying its our fault, what if the soldiers didnt shoot and the car had a bomb in it? What than?

We clearly need checkpoints to help keep terrorists out of Iraq (or certain Iraqi cities I guess). Or should we go back to building castles? hehe

Cars clearly need to NOT SPEED AT A CHECKPOINT, lest they be mistaken for an insurgent homicide bomber.
OceanDrive
28-04-2005, 03:31
I'm sure the Iraqi people would appreciate it if we let suicide bombers drive freely into any part of the country aside from the US embassy. Really. Those checkpoints were a darned nuisance!before the US occupation there was no suicide bombers in Iraq.
OceanDrive
28-04-2005, 03:33
I cant believe your saying its our fault?you better believe it baby...you better believe it.
OceanDrive
28-04-2005, 03:36
Whatever tickles your pickle. Sometimes I like proof before Ibelieve something, ya know? Assumptions are fine if you are into that I guess.
his proof is that he personally talked to the deathTrap (US checkPoint) soldiers, dont ask him his names thouh...cos Im sure he dont remember :D

by the way I talked with the pope last week... [/sarcasm]
OceanDrive
28-04-2005, 03:40
We clearly need checkpoints to help keep terrorists out of Iraq (or certain Iraqi cities I guess). Or should we go back to building castles? heh.actually...we clearly need US intelligence to stop telling us lies...and we need the President to stop starting illegal wars...
Carnivorous Lickers
28-04-2005, 03:41
I would only believe it if they were filming each checkpoint encounter, and I saw what really happened for myself. It just seems higly unlikely that anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. The official story just doesnt add up.


Nah-if it was caught on tape, we'd have to hear how the tape was altered or tampered with. This is stupid and old.
Maybe the next time people will reconsider trying to circumvent a checkpoint after seeing how well the trigger happy, cowboy US Soldiers can shoot.
New Shiron
28-04-2005, 03:43
before the US occupation there was no suicide bombers in Iraq.

thats not exactly the worlds best analogy there.... thats like saying that before we had cars there were no car accidents.
Novoga
28-04-2005, 03:49
I haven't read all the replies to this thread so forgive me if this has been brought up already. When this story first broke the news I believed Sgrena's story, keep in mind I support the war with a passion. But I stopped believeing it after I saw the photos of the car and also after reading some blogs from soldiers who are serving or who haved served in Iraq. Sgrena said that the car was hit by hundred of bullets and also fired at by a tank, I thus assumed she was lucky to have survived and that it was either a planned attack or a grave mistake. The photos of the car showed hardly any bullet holes, those that existed where only in the engine block, where soldiers are told to fire at, and one stray bullet hit in the front windshield that I assume was caused by the bullet that killed the intelligence officer. If the car had been fired at by a tank it would have been destroyed and everyone in it would have been killed, but the car was intact the windows weren't even broken as I recall. In my opinion the incident took place due to poor preparation on part of the Italin officials who gave the insurgents $10-15 million for her release. This will sound very cold hearted but, if that money went to planning an operation that killed or wounded even one Iraqi civilian or Coalition soldier, then Sgrena should be be charged for it. I would have rather seen her head cut off by the insurgents than have even one Iraqi civilian or Coalition soldier die so she can continue her assault on the people of Iraq and the Coalition forces trying to make Iraq a stable and democratic country. Ask yourself, is she worth $10-15 million when that money just went to further the cause of the Insurgents?
Carnivorous Lickers
28-04-2005, 03:55
Was the ransom Italy paid actually in the millions? I had never heard the amount. Of course Italy would try to keep this quiet and not seek to make it a joint US effort. Imagine admitting that "Yes-we are going to hand Zarqawi (sp?) TEN MILLION US dollars?
I'm sorry friends were killed. But they were damn foolish. And the ransom they paid certainly isnt going to feed or immunize Iraqi children-it will go to kill Americans wherever they can. As is a huge portion of the money collected under the Islamic charities
OceanDrive
28-04-2005, 04:03
thats not exactly the worlds best analogy there.... thats like saying that before we had cars there were no car accidents.we like cars...we want cars...

We do not want foreign soldiers manning DeathTraps(CheckPoints) all over the roads.
OceanDrive
28-04-2005, 04:09
... The photos of the car showed hardly any bullet holes, those that existed where only in the engine block...feel free to link the photos
Aryanis
28-04-2005, 05:10
All I'm wondering is why over 240 posts need to be dedicated to the tunnel vision of an uneducated, childish lout whose best attempts at undermining a nonexistent cause he has fabricated in his mind are exemplified in simple minded, misspelled, transparently motivated little stabs in a weak attempt to subvert the truth before his eyes in order to apotheosize his self-image by confirming his delusions. The higher ground is to not even answer to such a thread; let his obtuseness confirm itself with the silence it is met by. There is a reason he never writes more than a handful of words in his posts; it masks his inability to lend his "argument" credence, to win even an amateurish debate. People only indulge his immaturity by playing into the pathetic traps he sets. Let his illusory envy shout forever in the erstwhile void of loneliness he indubitably inhabits outside this forum, the only place he can find people willing to ignore his worthlessness and bother to interact. At least the other guy attempts to form the pretense of a legitimate opinion by trying to support his effetely presented inferiority complex disguised as tired, old, empirically devoid garbage attempting to appear as tired, rehashed Euro-patronization toward the most visible fruit of its own colonialism and imperialism, ironically the result of its efforts for hundreds of years in an area it now laughably criticizes others for without even a case to make. I suppose, as the old idiom says, it takes one to know one, though the issue of relegating sovereignty automatically voids the argument before it begins.
New Shiron
28-04-2005, 06:50
wow Aryanis, that has to be one of the longest and most detailed description of a troll I have seen .... chuckle

this isn't the first time Italy has caved in to terrorism.. the Achille Laro hijackers and murderers were given essentially a free pass by the Italians back in the 1980s

you would think Italy would know better after their decades long war with the Mafia too
The Downmarching Void
28-04-2005, 07:49
If I follow your logic correctly, anyone who ever made a mistake that resulted in unfortunate consequenses should be severely punished.

.

When that mistake costs the life of another person? Yes! Its already the law. Manslaughter is a pretty heavy offence. When I used the term friendly fire, I was making a mistake, as someone pointed out. Its not a friendly fire case. It is something which needs to be looked into by an independent non-biased inquiry. I have no ill will to any soldier in Iraq. I don't like the war, but I actually have sympathy for the soldiers and their situation in Iraq. Thats a dangerous job and it doesn't pay all that much either. In the post you quoted from, I never layed any specific blame on the US or its soldiers. I never said that all US soldiers are stupid and trigger-happy. I said some soldiers were like this. They're the ones non-americans think of because thats what get played in the media outside the USA. In an army so large, a few nut-jobs can and do become soldiers.



While not an actual firendly fire incident, its clear from the tone in this thread that people will think of this incident as something very similar but even more frightening. When a soldier is killed in a war zone, it is sad, but not at all unexpected. The possibilty of death is something he must face when he is doing his duty.

But these weren't soldiers. They were innocent civillians. There is a big difference between the two, and thats why people are getting so riled up about it.

Personaly, I think they were just impatient to get to the airport, so they sped by the first two without any difficulty and figured the third checkpoint would be just like the other ones.Like they say, "Two out of three isn't bad." On the other hand, dying while attempting to make it 3 out 3 is really bad.
Aryanis
28-04-2005, 07:55
Not to be a smartass, but the mafia is Sicilian. The Italian counterpart is known as the Camorra. They flourished for a while in the United States, but were eventually replaced entirely by the more ruthless Mafia (who are in turn being replaced by the more ruthless Russian crime organizations, and Asian gangs in the west, but may resurge with the shift in focus of domestic law enforcement). Salvatore Luccana (Lucky Luciano) essentially spelled the Camorra's doom with his foundation of the five families of New York. Your main point is very true; unfortunately, that was not the first time the Italians shelled out millions for captive women, either. One wonders how they could possibly be so short sighted, to not see where that money will be spent, and whether such paid ransoms will merely encourage further extortion. We greatly appreciate their presence, but damn, you have to wonder if they're hurting more than helping; I suppose journalists and such would still be taken captive for ransom whether they were militarily involved or not (which won't last, Silvio's days are sadly numbered).

To the posters who find it improbable that people would be so obtuse as to speed through multiple checkpoints, I have your answer. The payment of the ransom and "rescue" of the hostage itself were rather hastily and haphazardly planned and executed, with little notification toward ranking Italian authorities, and none toward anyone involved with the Coalition (who would have never sanctioned such foolishness). Thus, the ride to the airport was an extremely panicked, disorganized affair. The driver seemingly ignored what his experience taught him, performing rather unprofessionally in the hostage extraction. The Communist woman was undoubtedly screaming hysterically long before the checkpoints, which couldn't have made it any easier. The "coldblooded savagery" of our troops referred to by Von Witzleben and others should not be taken seriously; they have nothing to support their view but hackneyed, generic mold, the result of their hearts lying to their minds and eyes, forcing the emission of garbage passed off as opinion. They view the world as they want to see it, not through an objective lens of empirical observation, thus their opinions are those of pre-packaged hacks, and utterly worthless, hence my noting that people should not indulge them by playing along but rather isolate their idiocy by employing a blind eye.

To the Downmarching Void, you have a valid point. There is an extremely small contingent of goofballs in the US Army who make poor decisions; there are goofballs who act as such in every organization that has ever been known to man. There are friendly fire incidents, and they are all equally regrettable. The Israelis sinking our ship in the eastern Mediterrenean during (I believe) the Six Days' War is no worse than the JDAM which misses its target in Iraq. The unnecessary loss of life is always a sad thing (though the passenger as opposed to the driver taking one wouldn't have been so bad), but, as you noted, this is NOT a friendly fire incident. "Friendly fire" indicates that one allied force fired mistakenly at what is usually a marked allied vehicle or group of persons. Being that the woman was not affiliated with any Coalition effort, her status was no different than, say, a French reporter, Iraqi citizen, or any other noncombatant. The treatment is the same for all such persons; if they brazenly disregard safety precautions and checkpoints, they are warned in three separate phases. Failing those precautionary measures, soldiers are trained to fire into the engine block of the vehicle to disable it. Some bullets may go astray, and it's regrettable, but who is responsible for that situation? In security terms, they not only broke into our house, but were beating our wife, ridiculing our child, and raping our dog in plain sight. At some point, given that we had no way of knowing their identities or intentions (but given the frequency in uniformity of intent among similar incidents, the evidence strongly suggested a terrorist attack), enough is enough. If you are looking to criticize atrocities of war, go for the "Rape of Nan King", the "Batan death march", Heydrich in the Ukraine, vengeful Russian troops mass raping German women, Rome's suppression of the revolt in Judea which led to the mass suicide at Masada, the Russian pogroms, and so on. Study them and you might find a hint of worse intent and results than this comparatively laughable incident. Time does not blunt the horror of the past; criticize those and the innumerable other abhorrences throughout history that are actually that which you picture this as, and then decide whether this is really the most important thing to be decrying. One must gain the perspective of all times before analyzing the current timestream.

The fog of war has a great influence. Things which are clear to the armchair general sitting behind a computer with air conditioning a month after the incident are not always as clear in the thick of battle, when one has acquaintances who died from going out of their way to show deference to the Iraqi people and having someone snipe, IED, car bomb, or attempt to pull whatever other snaky act of cowardice on them over and over and over again for that respect and caution. It rightfully puts one in a very paranoid, untrusting, wary state of mind. Given the fact that one slip, one second too late can mean not just your death but the death of your mates, the death of the actual innocent people, being Iraqis, not Communist reporters with agendas, the fact that these idiots were allowed to speed through not one, not two, but three checkpoints with signs, with waving troops, with warning shots, and continued on their idiotic way is itself an indicator of the extreme OVER caution of our troops in not causing unnecessary deaths, going so far as to possibly sacrifice their own and defy protocol, just to give them 4 consecutive chances. If the troops were to be indicted on anything, it should have been for not killing every single person in that car 3 checkpoints before. Having done otherwise endangered, by the inherent nature of the opaque situation, far more people than died in the incident. If Iraqis who have had education strangled away from them for most of their lives can figure out the great complexities of the checkpoint system, one would think such an "enlightened" group which takes such great pleasure in pointing out the stupidity of Americans would have taken heed of the obvious. It must have been that our signs and warning shots as well were too stupid, imperialistic, and capitalistically enslaving to be given notice. Us Americans and our arrogant, bloodthirsty warnings, overcaution in the face of our own death, and escorted rides to the hospital for those we target for assassination. I find it beyond hilarious that this woman thinks that we actually tried to kill her specifically and simply found it to be a task beyond our capabilities. Must have been her bulletproof aura of superior intellectual Marxist infallibility. You'd think the M1A2 might have had a shot, but naw, she was just too wily!

As I said, you have a point, but merely one that applies to every organization in the history of man. Our armed forces are not perfect, our country is not perfect, it's only that we and a few others are a hell of a lot closer than, ironically, those who debate whether to hold a debate which would debate the possibility of holding a debate over whether to write a courteous but firm letter to show slight displeasure with various genocides and stockpiles in the hands of autocratic regimes before concluding arms and oil deals with those regimes, while criticizing the one country willing to sacrifice its own citizens, its own resources, to stand up and act, not in envious slander, hypocrisy, hollow words, and corruption, but lasting action. It's a thankless job, but someone's gotta do it. Do not confuse the necessity of wariness among our troops and the occasional human err under good intention with an organization filled with bumbling, inbred, slackjawed yokels firing indiscriminately at passing cars. They're heroes, every one of them, so treat them as a whole with the well deserved respect, if you would.
The Downmarching Void
28-04-2005, 08:47
I just realised I forgot to add an important distinction I want to make clear: I don't think the soldiers involved in this are of the goofball variety While hate war because it means the loss of life. I strongly disagree with the actions of the US governemnt and I'm a Canadian, not an American.

I do however have some grasp on the reallities of war. I can understand why those soldiers acted like they did. If its verifiable (I think it most likely is) that the car sped through 2 check popints and was unmarked, then what the soldiers did was their duty. It's terrible that people died as result, and I suspect those soldiers are probably feeling pretty horrible about what happened.
Aryanis
28-04-2005, 08:57
That's cool, man, just seemed your opinion suggested otherwise, what with calling it a "mistake" and "manslaughter" and all, indirectly referring to the soldiers involved in this as "nut-jobs", and mentioning the loss of innocent life as if it was the fault of anyone but the victim, in this particular case.
Novoga
29-04-2005, 03:08
Here are the photos I was talking about

http://secureliberty.org/index.php/2005/03/08/sgrena_s_car_photos

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/070580.php

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=563069&page=1
Lancamore
29-04-2005, 03:44
The Israelis sinking our ship in the eastern Mediterrenean during (I believe) the Six Days' War
If you are referring to the USS Liberty, it might not qualify as a friendly fire incident. While under attack by Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats, the crew of the Liberty hoisted a large American flag over their ship. It was clearly visible to the attackers, and yet they continued. There was no Arab ship remotely like the size and configuration of the Liberty anywhere. There is speculation that the Israeli government ordered the attack to prevent the US from gaining advance notice of a surprise attack on the Arabs they were about to conduct. The Liberty was an intelligence gathering ship, listening to communications from both sides.
Don't get me wrong... it pisses me off when people talk about bloodthirsty imperialist Zionists crushing the poor innocent defenseless Palestinians. I just thought I'd bring that up.


I find it beyond hilarious that this woman thinks that we actually tried to kill her specifically and simply found it to be a task beyond our capabilities. Must have been her bulletproof aura of superior intellectual Marxist infallibility. You'd think the M1A2 might have had a shot, but naw, she was just too wily!
Yeah, I agree with this. If orders were given to target this journalist (even though we didn't know she had been released) she would be DEAD along with everyone in the car. We would have made it dissapear entirely, or staged an insurgent ambush.
Karas
29-04-2005, 04:15
Uh... The US doesn't leave its casualties lying around. We recover every man. If your hypothetical terrorists had US uniforms they wouldn't have got them from dead soldiers.

More importantly, where would the terrorists manning the checkpoint have gotten their hands on a tank/armored vehicle?

Possibly captured in a raid on a US base somewhere. Let the enemy's supplies feed your forces. It is a basic rule of Guerilla warfare. That the US makes an effort to recover every soldier doesn't prevent enemies from holding an area long enough to strip or even destroy the remains.

Of course, there are also probably plenty of Iraqi tanks still lying around somewhere. The problem with totaly destroying a millitary force is that it is difficult to take percise inventory of their weapons.
Syniks
29-04-2005, 23:41
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US satellite reportedly recorded a checkpoint shooting in Iraq last month, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast a car carrying a top Italian intelligence official and a freed hostage was traveling when US troops opened fire.

The report, which aired Thursday on CBS News, said US investigators concluded from the recording that the car was traveling at a speed of more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour.

Giuliana Sgrena has said the car was traveling at a normal speed of about 30 miles an hour when the soldiers opened fired, wounding her and killing Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who had just secured her release from a month’s captivity. ...

CBS, citing Pentagon officials, said the satellite recording enabled investigators to reconstruct the event without having to rely on the eyewitness accounts.

It said the soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards (meters) away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards (meters) away. CBS said that happened in less than three seconds, which meant the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour.
Sumamba Buwhan
30-04-2005, 00:43
huh? they recorded a checkpoint shooting of a different car that was speeding so that proves that the italians were?
Isanyonehome
30-04-2005, 00:55
huh? they recorded a checkpoint shooting of a different car that was speeding so that proves that the italians were?

Think of it like re constructing an accident scene using data that you know is true and applying to a situation where the details might be a bt fuzzy.

They know what one situation looks like(the sat photos) and they are comparing what happened in them to what happened in the Italian incident and trying to understand the differances/simularities.
Sumamba Buwhan
30-04-2005, 01:02
Think of it like re constructing an accident scene using data that you know is true and applying to a situation where the details might be a bt fuzzy.

They know what one situation looks like(the sat photos) and they are comparing what happened in them to what happened in the Italian incident and trying to understand the differances/simularities.


I unserstand perfectly what they are tring to do, but it still proves nothing. It looks like the article is trying to show it as some sort of conclusion to the case. If they were satelite photos of the actual incident I coudl understand but the way it looks from the article, it actually clears nothing up.

This whole fiasco should have them video taping every single checkpoint encounter. I don't care if some peopel will say "oh they manipulated the video" - it's better than nothing."
Syniks
30-04-2005, 01:16
I unserstand perfectly what they are tring to do, but it still proves nothing. It looks like the article is trying to show it as some sort of conclusion to the case. If they were satelite photos of the actual incident I coudl understand but the way it looks from the article, it actually clears nothing up.

This whole fiasco should have them video taping every single checkpoint encounter. I don't care if some peopel will say "oh they manipulated the video" - it's better than nothing."
Actually, the article is just poorly worded.

HERE is the link. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050429/pl_afp/italyusiraqsatellite_050429162837;_ylt=Arjg3cLaI9SskuMfdpXZv8GsOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVR PUCUl)

But if you follow THIS Link (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050429/photos_pl_afp/050429162837_1wg9awkr_photo0;_ylt=Avr2M2ApzrOt8Wu_KjpwOXetOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-) you will note that the text reads "A US satellite reportedly recorded the checkpoint shooting in Iraq, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast the car carrying Calipari and freed hostage Giuliana Sgrena was traveling when US troops opened fire..."

I don't know which one is true. "The shooting" or "A shooting". However if it is "The shooting" then, as you say, it draws a pretty solid conclusion - e.g. Sgrena lied about the circumstances of the event.
Sumamba Buwhan
30-04-2005, 01:21
Actually, the article is just poorly worded.

HERE is the link. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050429/pl_afp/italyusiraqsatellite_050429162837;_ylt=Arjg3cLaI9SskuMfdpXZv8GsOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVR PUCUl)

But if you follow THIS Link (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050429/photos_pl_afp/050429162837_1wg9awkr_photo0;_ylt=Avr2M2ApzrOt8Wu_KjpwOXetOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-) you will note that the text reads "A US satellite reportedly recorded the checkpoint shooting in Iraq, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast the car carrying Calipari and freed hostage Giuliana Sgrena was traveling when US troops opened fire..."

I don't know which one is true. "The shooting" or "A shooting". However if it is "The shooting" then, as you say, it draws a pretty solid conclusion - e.g. Sgrena lied about the circumstances of the event.

oh ok, well then if they can solidly conclude that she is a fat mouthed liar, then I say slap her a good one and give her back to the insurgents. And that driver should have been the one gettign shot
Aryanis
30-04-2005, 05:05
Man, I sure as hell hope that the Liberty wasn't intentional. Being a trusting person, despite the flag and all, I'd still like to believe it was an accident, but damn, it makes you wonder. You can bet our relations today would be a tad different had that been clearly proven. 9/11 wouldn't even have happened, likely, though joining the Arabs against Israel itself isn't the way to solve such situations. It ain't like Arab nations boast much in the way of navies, it does make you wonder.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
30-04-2005, 08:50
Actually, the article is just poorly worded.

HERE is the link. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050429/pl_afp/italyusiraqsatellite_050429162837;_ylt=Arjg3cLaI9SskuMfdpXZv8GsOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVR PUCUl)

But if you follow THIS Link (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050429/photos_pl_afp/050429162837_1wg9awkr_photo0;_ylt=Avr2M2ApzrOt8Wu_KjpwOXetOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-) you will note that the text reads "A US satellite reportedly recorded the checkpoint shooting in Iraq, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast the car carrying Calipari and freed hostage Giuliana Sgrena was traveling when US troops opened fire..."

I don't know which one is true. "The shooting" or "A shooting". However if it is "The shooting" then, as you say, it draws a pretty solid conclusion - e.g. Sgrena lied about the circumstances of the event.
So the Americans produce "evidence" after the fact and that is used to prove something? Is it not highly convenient that this evidence shows up NOW and that the checkpoint happened to be important enough to be monitored by a satellite? Sorry but I really don't think that this "evidence" was made at the time when the incident happened, but I think it was produced by the US to cement their argument. Investigators will be unable to figure out when the satellite recording was made, so chances are very high, that it was made after the fact and for the Pentagon, to further white wash their consciences.
Greater Yubari
30-04-2005, 09:40
I seriously doubt that the Italian secret service even coordinated their action with the Americans. No surprise there. I think they just wanted to look cool and play James Bond, and then whoops, Murphy's Law kicked in. Typical.

Let me put it this way... If I'm in charge of a checkpoint and a car runs through it ignoring us... I blast the car. Tough shit. There's a "STOP" sign and STOP means... well... stop. And if you don't stop there, well... How's the crew at the checkpoint supposed to know that you're not a terrorist? And in a hostile environment where bombs are just planted along the road side only an idiot would take the risk and let the car just pass.

It's also kind of funny that the Americans seem to be guilty on default. I'd rather say the Italians made a huge clusterfuck and don't want to admit it.
[NS]Ein Deutscher
30-04-2005, 11:51
The Americans lied about the reasons for the Iraq war, why would they not lie about this incident and come up with a story why the soldiers abolutely had to fire on the car and kill someone inside it? I highly doubt that the Italians would not coordinate such a rescue operation with the Americans and/or the Iraqis. I think the Americans are desperately trying to cover up what really happened. :mad:
Isanyonehome
30-04-2005, 14:26
Ein Deutscher']The Americans lied about the reasons for the Iraq war, why would they not lie about this incident and come up with a story why the soldiers abolutely had to fire on the car and kill someone inside it? I highly doubt that the Italians would not coordinate such a rescue operation with the Americans and/or the Iraqis. I think the Americans are desperately trying to cover up what really happened. :mad:

I think that if an asteroid was headed towards the Earth you would somehow think it was an American plot.
Lancamore
01-05-2005, 04:47
Ein Deutscher']So the Americans produce "evidence" after the fact and that is used to prove something? Is it not highly convenient that this evidence shows up NOW and that the checkpoint happened to be important enough to be monitored by a satellite? Sorry but I really don't think that this "evidence" was made at the time when the incident happened, but I think it was produced by the US to cement their argument. Investigators will be unable to figure out when the satellite recording was made, so chances are very high, that it was made after the fact and for the Pentagon, to further white wash their consciences.
As opposed to producing evidence before the fact.....
I suppose showing you the satellite photos wouldn't change your mind anyway, so what's the point?

I'd wait until the Italian investigation concludes before saying too much. If they substantiate the US conclusions, some people here will end up looking pretty foolish. But of course in that case the Italian government would suddenly be labeled as yet another Bush puppet.