Once again ---- Not once do you cite anything specific in ANY of my posts in regards to your blurry criticisms. And despite my continuing requests that you do so. It now appears that you either will not provide a simple cite or more likely, can’t. The fact that you continue to take this line speaks for itself. Instead you rely on more of your vague, indefinite, ad hominim. All totally devoid of meaning. All because you staunchly refuse to provide specific examples. So I dare ask once again – annaplurabelle give me an example of where I indicated ANYWHERE that “it is relevant to this ‘accident’ that Sgrena is a communist”. Give me a specific example where I have indicated ANYWHERE that it is relevant that Sgrena “has written articles critical of US policy”.
Now this part may indeed be relevant to this issue. Why? The consensus among Italy’s allies appears to be that paying for the release of kidnapped citizens is wrong— and, in fact, Italy had been receiving criticism from her allies as a result of this behavior. In fact, the Italian government has to this day not ‘officially’ acknowledged that they were paying millions of dollars to terrorists to gain release of hostages. Why? Because of the allies position against this behavior. As a consequence, there is a desire to keep this information as secret as possible – especially while to process in on-going to avoid any allied resistance. Hence, the need for secrecy and the lack of communication. This may very well have lead to part of the confusion leading to this incident. That is why US personnel were not provided information regarding Calipari’s mission – only that he was in the country. That is probably why the US and allies were not given notice of Sgrena’s pending release – I suspect for fear that the US and other allies would disapprove of the ransom. So – the real possibility that the ransom might be relevant to this issue — that is, maybe it was an unfortunate accident and not a planned assassination — as already suggested in prior posts.
Is this one of your ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ efforts?
Look at the OP’s topic title annaplurbelle – it runs along the lines of ‘did US personnel murder Calipari.’ Now notice the connection between Sgrenas allegations regarding US personnel’s ‘intent to kill’ and that connection with the OP title. Recall that Sgrena has made direct allegations that US personnel were attempting a murder. So ---- I suspect Sgrena’s credibility is at issue — and not just because of these two factors alone – but that is certainly enough. It appears either that you’ve failed to see this rather simple connection annaplurabelle or that you don’t want Sgrena’s credibility discussed. If the later — I ask you why?
Oh, and in the spirit of your ‘wife beating question’ — What is the point annapluabelle of your trying to smear US personnel? Why??
Another wrinkle - something I hadn’t heard before. The Italians indicate they were swerving around cement blocks when their car was fired apon.
[quote]
…The Italians say the car was swerving around cement blocks in the road when a bright light went on and, with no warning, the car was pummeled with automatic weapons fire for 10 to 15 seconds. U.S. military officials say troops made hand and arm signals, flashed white lights and fired warning shots to no avail.
Shit yeah , I had already ansewered Ale , when I noticed down stream that you had also ansewered him , with something to do with calipari’s driver being a local asset , not a rome special, that I had assumed.
So anyone still wondering , I said that , not Annaplurabelle
Declan
[QUOTE=Tigers2B1]
Another wrinkle - something I hadn’t heard before. The Italians indicate they were swerving around cement blocks when their car was fired apon.
That coincides with Pjen’s quote in post #40: "They passed two American checkpoints along the airport road without incident and were 700 metres or so from the airport building. The road narrowed to a single, one-way lane and took a 90-degree turn. The car was going slowly now, approaching the end of the journey.
I’ve seen roads narrow down to one lane with right angle barriers, usually at military bases. The Italians are describing check points. It’s speculation at this point but if the driver ignored the nature of the checkpoint and accelerated with even a modest amount of gas out of a corner he would have appeard to be charging the soldiers.
No, you asked “Does that mean there is a ‘certain death road’ for ‘unimportant’ people?”, and followed it with “Kinda sad, isn’t it?”, What’s sad is your pathetic attempts to make your rhetorical questions to seem innocent or sincere.
Who gives a crap about her politics besides you. You can ‘ignore’ an eyewitness when she has already made many domonstrably outrageous claims that she keeps having to correct when people call her on them.
Very well, as long as you quit describing 3 Italian nationals as “an allied nation” or “the Italians, who are, after all, allies of the US.”
I’m sorry, have we ever met?
Apparently, what you don’t know about who the subject we are debating about is alot.
What are you smoking? Are you refering to the secret info where she reported the US used napalm in fallujah and nuclear weapons in taking the airport? Other than that, my mind can’t decipher what other schemes deluded minds create. Mayhap you have an advantage on me and would like to share?
My mistake - I should have said Tigersand others, since it was Debaser who brought up ‘communist’ back on page one. As for the ransom…
So at last you admit you consider it relevant. But you feign outrage if it is also considered a possible motive. Can’t have it both ways. Do you really believe the US had no knowledge of Calipari’s activities that day??? From Newsday:
Calipari also received clearance to travel the Green Zone and the road to the airport when he first arrived. What difference would it make if it was unknown that Sgrena was in the car? The US knew about Calipari and the driver.
Her credibility is at issue because she was attacked, and wouldn’t rule out the possibility that it was an intentional hit??? And someone here started a thread about it??? These are the 2 factors that are enough? Are you serious???
BTW, what are the ‘other reasons’, since you’ve finally admitted to questioning her credibility?
What if I had info about the soldiers at that checkpoint, that might put their credibility at issue? Would you consider disclosing it here fair or a smear tactic? Think about it and get back to me, because the info is available. Just say the word.
As for Negroponte - do you really think a LIHOP is beneath him?
From the Newsday article:
The physical evidence isn’t consistent with trying to stop a car that is approaching, is it?
annaplurbelle, I see that yet once again you’ve decided NOT to support your assertions regarding positions you decide you will ascribe to me. Yet, you continue to do this on a continuing basis. It seems you have a burning desire to create positions for other posters. I suggest you get over that.
No annaplurabelle - you shouldn’t have said “Tigers and others” —if it is Debaser you’re really discussing, you should have said Debaser. Is this too difficult for you? Shees -
Again -------- I don’t ‘admit it’s relevant’ as you’ve decided to phrase this – I acknowledge the possibility — notice the gap between the word ‘may’ be relevant AND the words you’ve decided to attribute to me – that it ‘at last you admit you concider it relevant.’ See the difference? Stuff like this seems to be your meal ticket doesn’t it? —
Oh, and what’s the “…at last…” stuff — I’ve considered the possibility that the ransom played a role in the miscommnication or lack of communication between US personnel and the Italians way before this last post. Again ------- you attempt to assign a position not held.
There’s no “feigned outrage” – your hypotheticals are so ridiculous, so contrary to common sense, that there is nothing ‘feigned’ on my part — but whatever the emotion is, and I think it’s new to me, it isn’t ‘outrage.’ More of a ‘God, how can anyone be so lacking ordinary thinking skills’ -
Yep – at this point I believe the US had no knowledge of Calipari’s activities that day because that’s what the Italians said - and that’s what the US say. The stuff you cite were alleged calls made after the negotiations for the ransom, after the ransom was paid, after Sgrena’s release, and as they were approaching the airport. That doesn’t give one knowledge of Calipari’s activities. That is, providing notice of an ‘approach to the airport’ hardly equates with “knowledge of Calipari’s activities” as you’ve phrased this. So why don’t you actually quote something that supports what you assert next time ---- surprise me -
It seems that Sgrena has backtracked on her assassination story. Well, not “backtracked” – sort of totally reversed. I assume this is because it wasn’t working in the field as well as hoped. Strategically the change is a good move – if truth isn’t a concern. So stay tuned.
Oh, and at the linked site you’ll see that she states that “We were in an area monitored by American troops, close to the airport. Obviously Iraqi guerrillas couldn’t get there …” Wonder how she knows this with the certainity she uses? Than, and I add this as a gratuity, she states that ‘even if’ the car was full of “guerillas” - the US still would not be justified in firing. WTF?
Sad that Tigers** seems to be channelling Ann Coulter, and cannot provide a coherent rebuttal to my cites re: The ‘alternate’ road to the airport, US satellite/intel capabilities, and why Sgrena herself is on trial here.
Sgrena wasn’t driving the car. She didn’t fire on US forces. She didn’t kill a US national.
Care to explain why her ‘credibility’ is at issue here? At this point, I believe Sgrena is a red herring.
** I’d like to know:**
Were the weapons fired at the checkpoint confiscated for ballistics tests?
If not, why not?
Why wasn’t the car released to Italian authorities, as originally promised?
Will Negroponte and Gen Casey be required to testify under oath as to their knowledge of this incident?
If not, why not?
Was anyone not part of the US 3rd Division present at the checkpoint?
If these questions go unanswered, the ‘investigation’ is nothing but a farce.
Not that the rest of your, uhm, ‘insightful debate’ is any less goofy, but what do you think would be accomplished with ‘ballistics tests’ on said firearms? Or are you a CSI fan and just wanted to throw that one out there?
Uhmmm, OK. At best, CSI-ish ‘ballistics evidence’ will show that yes, 5.56mm (or 7.62mm or whatever) rounds were fired by weapons similiar to those carried by the soldiers at the checkpoint. That’s it, contrary to what ‘The Guardian’ (didn’t they do that nutty ‘write a letter to a Bush voter’ thing a while back?) might claim.
The problem with all that, of course, is that nobody is disputing that they shot the car. What is being laughed at is the notion that we were trying to off some ‘journalist’, and gadzooks! she got away.
How do you interperet that PatriotX? Or did you just toss that out as an FYI? If the US is investigating already, SHOULD they allow another government to send agents at the same time to investigate? Is this normal proceedure? Is the car considered evidence in the investigation?
Given that it involves an agent of the foreign government in question, (a friendly for gov at that), I’d say so. If the nationalities were reversed, I’d want the Us to be able to conduct an investigation as well.
What are you smoking? Are you refering to the secret info where she reported the US used napalm in fallujah and nuclear weapons in taking the airport? Other than that, my mind can’t decipher what other schemes deluded minds create. Mayhap you have an advantage on me and would like to share?