Well, if you can’t trust the bloodthirsty insurgents who kidnapped you and demanded a multi-million dollar payoff in exchange for your life, who can you trust?
I’d go for the guys shooting at me.
Airman: There’s no provision for warning shots, or shots to disable the car?
Kidchameleon: Maybe I’m just a pussy, but shoot any number of bullets in my general direction, and hit me or no, I’m going to think “what the fuck!” as opposed to, “meh, it’s only 8.”
Just to clarify - she was hit (or at least that’s the impression I got when I read on the news that she sustained a shoulder injury), as was the other agent. They weren’t mortally wounded, though.
Warning shots were allegedly fired (BTW, warning shots are not SOP, they have to be authorized by a theater commander so they are not ordinarily trained), and there is no way that a car can be disabled with any certainty with shooting. That’s a 2,000 pound (minimum) moving vehicle with a LOT of inertia. Besides, even if they shot at the vehicle to disable there would almost certainly be some sort of penetration into the passenger compartment.
Hey, maybe you’re on to something here. Could it be that they were attempting to disable the vehicle? That would explain the lack of obvious damage.
All the same, and this is with the utmost honesty, if I were manning a checkpoint and I saw a vehicle speeding at me and ignoring warning shots I’d aim right for where the driver is. It’s far easier to disable the driver than it is the vehicle. Shooting up an engine does not necessarily make it stop. Shooting the driver stops him in his tracks.
Well it appears you sure in the hell can’t trust the Italian government – they were suppose to be on our side – remember. Yet now it appears they were making muti-million dollar pay offs to terrorists all along. Putting weapon money into terrorist pockets and forking over millions to literal cutthroats. Berlusconi should have decided to “…rethink our strategy in dealing with kidnappings” long before ransom money ever changed hands ---- God only knows where we’ll see that money used -
Or better and more likely – just assert that it was 300 to 400 bullets, that she picked up hands full of bullets out of the bback seat, and the US plotted to assassinate her –
By the way – has she retract any of those statements yet – or is she still standing by those?
Uggghhhh
Bonnie and Clyde were killed by a hail of bullets, Willaim McKinley was not.
The QE2 is a titanic vessel, the SS Minnow is not.
The pyradmids at Giza are marvels of architecture, tin shacks are not.
A thousand an giraffes is a lot, one giraffe is not.
If the only thing between the reporter and a hail of bullets was the dead agent, there would be a fucking hail of bullets in the fucking dead agent, not one goddamned bullet. The other 7 to 399 bullets fired were not intercepted by the dead agent, they hit objects other than the dead agent.
One thing I’d have liked to see in the pics was a shot of the grille. Especially a head-on picture of it.
Yes, we get the point. But since we are not actually reporting to a commission of inquiry or a court, can we leave this behind now.
As discussed we cannot be sure on the details of this case yet and the number of bullets is fairly irrelevant to the argument in hand.
Part of your post is missing. The part where you segue from your diatribe on how the number of bullets fired at the car is decidedly un-hail like, and into a relevant point about how this impacts the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of the shooting.
BTW, if I wanted to engage in masturbatory word parsing, I would remind you that the agent is between the reporter and the bullets whether they strike him or not. The light side of the moon is always between the sun’s light and the dark side, even if most of the light goes elsewhere.
I think what we can assume is this; Our guys don’t go shooting up every car that approaches the station. They must have had a damn good reason to shoot this car though. Hundreds of cars are able to pass this check point every day without getting shot up, why not this car? I don’t know.
There’s no logic in this. Certainly the American soldiers must have had a good reason to open fire. Just as certainly, the Italian agents would have used caution when approaching an American checkpoint.
Can you not see why more information is needed?
Um, because they only fuck up once in awhile?
What do I get?
See, this is the kind of stuff that gets me going. Someone else says it was intentional and automatically everyone assumes that it’s the military’s fault. Most of you are taking the woman’s word for it just because. Just look at the title of the thread in GD- Was Freed Italian Hostage’s Guard Murdered by US Forces? That’s about as loaded a question as “Are you still beating your wife?” and implies that US forces did something wrong, which of course we are uncertain of. In this thread I have been guilty of the same things but I have to back my comrades because they’re being pummeled by assumption. Can it be that they screwed up? Sure. Do they screw up occasionally? Of course, they’r only human. But should it always be assumed that they are at fault? Nope. Yet some of you are perfectly willing to place the blame on them right away.
Hopefully, an aneurism. 
Really, I’m not taking sides here. You and Waverly can stop presuming that think I know what happened, I don’t.
I’m just stating the obvious. No-one in the millitary LIKES to kill people, especially civs. This particular auto had to be doing enough wierd stuff that would have caused the forces to actually shoot it. Those guys are over there everyday, they have to deal with cars blowing up in their faces and getting shot at by those that appear to be civilians. Whatever erratic manuevers this particular car was involved in was enough to draw the attention of the soldiers.
However much you’d like to think otherwise, they didn’t just shoot this particular auto to get their rocks off.
That’s it.
And what gets me going is when people misinterpret my posts.
We need the facts, we simply don’t know enough here.
Well said. Were they waiting for Blue the puppy to bounce by and put a pawprint on the machine gun nest?
"You see a machine gun.
That’s the first clue.
You put it in your notebook
Cause it’s a roadblock, roadblock.
You see the flashing light.
That’s the second clue!
You put it in your notebook
Cause it’s a roadblock, roadblock.
You hear a lot of gunfire.
That’s the third clue!
You put it in your notebook
Cause it’s a roadblock, roadblock.
Well, you find that fucking brake and then you stop. Stop. Stop.
Cause when you use your mind and you stop on time
You can go
Right on through
Like you wanna do.
Well spunkbubble what if they DID stop?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4333839.stm
My Bolding.
Berlusconi isn’t reporting the words of a stupid commie bit. Nope that’s the account of the Italian agent also in the car. So is he lying?