How do you know he was lying about the speed of the car as he approached the checkpoint. were you there? Did you measure the speed?
As stated above – not only does it now appear that Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts concerning the ransomed hostage, and not only does it appear that they failed to heed warnings to stop their vehicle ---- as also stated above, they very well might have been approaching the at an unsafe speed – Below is her statement about “almost losing control of the car” –
I believe that the US authorities are performing a thorough investigation. I don’t see any reason why they need to immediately fall on their sword before all the evidence is gathered and processed.
Given the scale of the engagement, I don’t know if it’s possible to conduct a mistake free and ‘clean’ war. I know of no military action of this scale where injustices aren’t perpetrated. I know of no nation with sparkling clean hands in a conflict of this magnitude. Doesn’t justify it. Just the reality we all have to face and not pretend to be such pollyannas.
I’ve long ago resigned myself to the fact that most news stories tend to be less fact and more subjective analysis after the first few sentences in the story. I think this is true outside the US as well. Look at Italy’s spin… Assasination?!! Come on!
I only watch it when I feel like yelling at the television. 
I must agree with you here. Incredibly disappointing but not surprising for this administration.
Here in lies the rub. Everybody is so used to expecting the worst that even accidental and unfortunate incidents like this are viewed as intentional and malicious.
As has been explained at length - that refers to a different part of the journey. :rolleyes:
Let’s assume the Italian reports were entirely factual, accurate, and true.
Someone evidently fired from inside the vehicle. Quite a few rounds, evinced by the spent cartriges, which are found at the place from which weapons are fired, not at the target.
People need to choose their liars more carefully. Stupid liars always make this sort of mistake.
Tris
I get the assist on this one!!!
Option A you have worded very poorly. It could be rephrased to say “An accident caused by a driver foolishly not stopping at a security checkpoint.”
Option B would only be believed by those who already hate the America and US troops.
Option C would only be believed by an insane person. Even this communist journalist who has a history of being sympathetic to terrorists and hating the US has backed off on her original statements because they are so crazy.
Hey, not so fast. I said this in post #22.
The Italian version of the story does not make sense.
Curse you, Debaser,!!! Curse you to Blazes!!! 
So your contention now is that the Italians attacked the Americans is it? I dismissed the cartridge thing as a mistranslation or misunderstanding as it only appears in one newspaper report out of dozens and makes no sense. You can just as well say it proves the Americans fired from within the car, and were lousy shots.
The unsafe speed? Not according to the personnel at the checkpoint. Or do you only view one side of a story before drawing conclusions? In fact, her admission may in fact be consistant with what was allegedly witnessed by checkpoint personnel.
Already the Italians are beginning with the admisssions that proper notice may not have been provided by THEIR personnel. So the question becomes — IF the Italian agents HAD NOT WITHHELD this information would this have occurred? If the Italian driver would have heeded warnings would this have occurred? If they would have been approaching at a reasonable speed would this have occurred?
Bottomline ---- for the OP to use the term ‘murder’ in the topic title is just laughable —
Every story I read. BBC, Guardian, Independent, Irish Independent, Telegraph, CNN all talk about lots of bullets.
Anyone want to give a cite for 1 bullet?
Also the avoiding puddles is obvious to me. In a country that has experienced events like Iraq I’d guess the potholes/craters in the roads are HUGE. Puddles could be 1 inch or 3 feet deep so would be avoided by drivers. I’ve seen the same in Cambodia after rain. Drivers would make very sudden turns to avoid a oncoming puddle.
I don’t think this incident was a “hit” or anything like it but from previous events I’d say the chances of aggressive OTT American troops shooting at anything that they perceive as even the smallest bit threatening are very high indeed.
Since when is this a shooting offence?
Would anyone like to take bets on the result of the “thorough” enquiry
- the work of a few bad apples
- she was faking it
- she was a communist, anti-american who had spent the last weeks with known terrorists
- or will they just wait until the (US) press has forgotten about it -
It is impossible to speed through a checkpoint. A proper checkpoint has obstacles in the road (often-time Jersey barriers) so a vehicle has to maneuver through them, usually at very low speeds, like between 5-10 mph.
So either the U.S. soldiers are lying or they are not competent enough to make a proper checkpoint.
Also, shining a spotlight on someone means that that person will be completely blind to the source of the light. This can only add confusion to someone approaching a checkpoint, so there is no way it can qualify as a warning.
One bullet is all we know for sure. It killed one man and pieces of it wounded one other person.
If the US troops had shot “hundreds” of bullets, then no one would have been left alive in the car.
And I’d say that shooting at anything they perceive as even the smallest bit threatening is right and proper for them to do. This isn’t a welcome center or a toll booth. It’s a security checkpoint. The terrorists in Iraq regularly like to drive cars filled with explosives up to US troops and blow them up. It’s even been on the news a couple of times. There isn’t anything wrong with the US troops shooting at cars who approach without notice and don’t obey instructions to stop.
It’s possible that there was wrongdoing by the soldiers. However, the onus is on you to prove that. It’s a warzone, and the troops have every reason to be cautious about incoming unidentified vehicles. To jump immediately to the conclusion that the troops must be somehow to blame just betrays your bias against them.
Quite. It seems pretty clear who the guilty party is and is part of an oft-repeated pattern. A Bulgarian soldier was killed by American troops the same day.
[QUOTE=silkie]
Since when is this a shooting offence?
“Since when” did I say that just because the Italians were withholding this information a “shooting offense” is okie dokie silkie?? – Christ, talk about building and then responding to a strawman. You best go back and read the post and link again.
This debate seems to have gotten stumped with regards to the speed of the car.
Its been stated several times that the car was travelling at 40-50 kph or 25-30 mph.
If we take this as fact, we’re left to wonder if this is “travelling at a high rate of speed”?
I personally agree that is a high rate of speed to approach a roadblock; assuming that there was a roadblock.
Surely we’ve all stood at an intersection about to cross and watched cars approaching at a normal speed of 50kph. And in watching that car approach, it is usually clear whether or not the car is about to stop for the red, or is about to mow you down.
Using the subjecting term, “travelling at a high rate of speed” can only be left to decision of the soldiers at the checkpoint, who no doubt have to watch hundreds of cars a day approach at 50kph AND THEN SLOW DOWN.
From what I’ve read, there is no mention that the car ever tried to slow down. I would have expected to hear something along the lines of, “we were travelling at 40-50kph and slowed down to approach the check point…” or “when the light hit the car we slammed on the breaks…”
My point here is that travelling at 50kph can seem pretty fast depending on where you’re standing.
Rashak Mani, the family whose parents were accicentally shot when they ran a checkpoint got quite extensive coverage here, complete with pictures of the shocked, blood-covered children. There’s a lot more coverage and nuance here than you might think of the cost of this war on civilians and soldiers alike.
As for the one-shot thing, only Nicola was hit by a bullet–one bullet. Sgrena was hit by shrapnel from the engine block, which the Americans freely admit they shot at. AFAICT the other two agents were unhurt. I just don’t see how the “hundreds of rounds” thing can work, unless they were all aimed at the engine block and one ricocheted.
I’d also be interested in where they all were in the car. Driver and Agent #1 in the front seat, VIP and her main guard in the back seat? If you were spraying huge amounts of gunfire into a car to stop a possible suicide bombing (a valid thing IMO, hell, 11 more Iraqis died today in a car bombing) wouldn’t you target the driver? Doesn’t this argue more for a ricochet to the back seat?
I wrote a bit more in the MPSIMS thread. I’m not saying that this wasn’t a horrible mess caused by the Americans who did the actual shooting, but I also think that a) if they wanted Sgrena dead, she’d BE dead, and so would the driver and b) causing a major rift in Italian-American relations by intentionally shooting a loudmouthed journo serves neither the Bush admin or the Italian Government.