And of course our guys could tell they were allies how? Is there a special Ally paint job or something?
No, allies behave like allies. I believe our guys because they weren’t the ones that said that “hundreds of bullets” were fired. If that were the case, if they really wanted this woman dead, she’d be dead. They have vastly more credibility than she does. And if they say that the guy approached the checkpoint like a car bomber, I have to believe that he did.
I’m rather surprised this is still classified as a war zone. After all, the Commander In Least landed on the aircraft carrier to proclaim “Mission Accomplished” over a year ago.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Hundreds of rounds? Doesn’t appear that way. But I rather doubt the car was speeding through the checkpoint. Perhaps the whole affair could have been avoided by simply stopping the car. But: US troops seem to have a way of causing “accidents” when it involves journalists. Eason Jordan of CNN had it right.
I blame the car driver for not stopping. I blame the troops for not merely firing at the tires or firing warning shots. Mostly I blame the attitude that killing indiscriminately is fine.
Yup, not much point waiting for an investigation or anything.
I can understand why they wouldn’t turn around and count the bullets lying around. So far I’ve heard the number 8 for the bullets found inside the car. It would be necessary to know how many shots soldiers need to fire to hit a car on average to get an idea of how many bullets were fired. That a stressed out reporter with the dead body of her rescuer on top of her doesn’t have the cool to effectively gauge how many shots were fired is pretty clear.
Discrediting the woman now and trying to shift the blame is one way to deal with bad press. Hopefully “next time” the way of not shooting Italian agents is chosen instead to avoid bad press.
Off the point, but related in todays Times (the uk version) page 9 “US Troops get training to avoid friendly fire attacks on British”
In the last year there have been 32 “blue on blue” incidents, most of which involved US troops firing on allied forces.
Now US troops are to recieve training in what the Union Jack looks like so they don’t shoot at British vehicles.
A British officer in Basra said “the Americans can be pretty pumped up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction”
All of the above seems to indicate that this tragic incident is not deliberate murder, but was more than likely caused by overzealous and panicky troops.
On saturday it was reported that the car carrying the two Italians was driving slowly, but was still fired upon, in fact it was even suggested that no actual checkpoint existed, just a mobile unit of soldiers.
Does it really matter how many bullets were fired? The fact remains that this man was killed. Regardless of the amount of ammo used, it was yet another unneccesary death.
I personally have no experience of a war or liberation zone, but trained soldiers should have the experience and knowledge to show restraint. It seems to me, I have no evidence to back this up, that Senior Officers have given the troops carte blanche to do anything they want on the grounds of self defence.
This reminds me of the incident last eyar, when a news cameraman POINTED a directional mike at a soldier on guard duty. He got shot…and I can’t balame the soldier…a directional mike looks like a gun…and this kid had split seconds to decide what to do. The pont is, a lot of journalists behave like a war zone is a walk in the park…too bad, if its a young soldier trying to stay alive, he had better shoot first.
Here, you fucking arsehole, are a list of the journalists killed last year whilst enjoying their ‘walk in the park’.
Talk about something you have a clue about or fuck off, Mr ‘shoot first’ twat.
Err. I’m no military genius, but I would have thought that you assumed a civilian vehicle was filled with civilian until they gave a pretty damn good indication to the contrary.
What do you mean you believe “our guys.” Aren’t they all “ours”? Americans, American allies, and the Iraqi civilians that were liberated? I don’t understand this ‘us vs. them’ noise you are making.
You mean like, maybe, speeding up to a checkpoint?
When I said “our guys”, I was referring to the US military. You know, the ones that get blamed for everything from carpet bombing to the common cold. The ones we’re talking about right now.
Are you not reading what is been written here? It is too early and there is not enough evidence to blame anyone for this incident.
However, there is plenty to suggest that American troops are ‘trigger-happy’. Take the Times article already mentioned. Do you believe the British soldier quoted:
Or do you reserve unquestioning belief for your own troops?
Huh?, are the car bombers and suicidal maniacs driving around in cars marked, “Insurgent/Terrorist Personel Only”?
The only way to know the difference is to judge by the actions of the vehicle and it’s occupants.
My point is that
is incorrect. The agent was killed by one bullet, to the temple. If the only thing between the reporter and a ‘hail of bullets’ was the dead agent, the mythical ‘hail of bullets’ would be in the dead agent . Exaggerations in no way help this discussion.
Which is what Waverly said in the second half of his(?) sentence.
It’s the least I can do, especially since they get blamed for everything else under the sun.
I’ll tell you what: if they intentionally opened fire on this woman’s vehicle without cause I will be out in front of the parade condemning the soldiers that did it. I’ll be even louder than you, because I know what the rules are and I think that people who break those rules should be severely punished (case in point: Abu Ghraib). Until then I am taking their word for it over the word of a known US-hater who has described the attack in impossibly fantastic terms.
Airman,
I haven’t blamed anybody. My point has been that we don’t really know what happened, and that the Italian request for answers is perfectly reasonable.
One of the things we don’t know is whether the car was speeding or not. You believe “our guys” instead of a hysterical reporter. I think you are being lead by the nose. The reporter wasn’t the one driving; she was along for the ride with a couple of professionals. I think some effort has been put into exaggerating the fantastical aspects of her take on events. If you shrug off the Italian side of the story because the reporter doesn’t seem credible, you do a disservice to the agents involved in the extraction.
Fair enough.
Whoa, back up the pickle truck right there. You assume, yet again, that the car is speeding, which has yet to be established. Do you think if you make enough assumptions, some of them become facts?
Does anyone know what the rules of engagement should have been? Were they followed? I sure don’t. What subjective criteria makes an approaching car a threat? Certainly we aren’t sending 18 year old kids out there without some guidance. Once a threat is perceived, what do you do next? If you fire, do you shoot to kill? How well was this checkpoint identified, by the way? Would the driver known that he was approaching American soldiers?
When these questions get answered, we can play the blame game.
Sure, I’ll so stipulate. Cause of death: one headshot. Total bullets found up to this point in the car: 8. Number of bullets outside the car: unknown. Let’s agree to call this something between ‘none’ and ‘a buttload’. OK with you?
There’s no other way. If you shoot, you shoot center mass. That is how we are trained. They only shoot for the arm in the movies.
Number of bullets traveling on path to the reporter that were blocked by agent’s body: One at most.
Number of bullets that would have hit reporter if agent was not there: One at most.
The bullets not traveling toward the reporter have no bearing on your statement.