Sgrena Lied

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I will concede that the American soldier was actually thanking the Secretary of Defense for the excellent work he had personally done to ensure that the soldiers in Iraq would be sufficient in numbers and adequately equipped to do their job. Okay?

I must have been reading something else not to have caught it right the first time. (Me and a hundred news agencies. )

[/ QUOTE ]
here's the full transcript as I'm sure you haven't read it.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef1761.html

[ QUOTE ]
You are very confused. To the point where you now forget what you were posting only hours ago!

You claimed, in so many words, that the Italians were speeding and did not stop -- so they were either crazy or trying to ram through the American checkpoint... I, on the other hand, dismissed the possibility of intentional killing AND claimed that there was recklessness on the part of the Americans. I even gave possible reasons for that posture, e.g. stress caused by other suicide attacks happening at the time. The Italian report just confirmed my version! And they say nothing about any car "speeding" suicidally towards the checkpoint.

Where do you see the Italians agreeing with you? You are tremendously confused.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess it was too subtle for you. I was mocking you. Imitating the way you are behaving and how you are displaying your confirmation bias in which you dismiss the U.S. account, but are only to happy to accept the Italian version because it agrees with your preconceived notions.

And shooting at a speeding car that is at least giving the signals that they may be a suicide bomber is cautious, not trigger happy. You've said yourself that one possible explanation is that the troops knew of other such attacks. That means they are reasonable in assuming a car driving at 50-60 mph towards a U.S. checkpoint may be a terrorist attack. That means that they would not be trigger happy in responding by shooting the car AFTER they'd tried to signal the car. If they just shot at the car without any attempts to signal the car, I might agree that the soldiers behaved recklessly, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Cyrus]

I don't have the answer to that. I am merely posing what I think is a legitimate question.

There is a crucial point in the Calipari killing : Did the American side know or did it not know of the impending spring to freedom of the car carrying Sgrena ? The American side claims it never heard of it. The Italians claim they informed the proper channels. (In the chaos that is Iraq, good luck trying to define those "proper channels".)

Now, the American side claims that the Italian general (upon learning that the hostage was freed and would be making a run towards safety in a car) said to his American aide, a captain, that the car's ride "best be kept secret". The American captain says he took that to mean "a direct order" not to inform anyone else, not even his superior American officers!

You can understand my doubts about the veracity of such excuses. I mean, what if the Italian general "ordered" something that might have endangered American soldiers' lives? I just don't buy it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it was too subtle for you. I was mocking you. Imitating the way you are behaving and how you are displaying your confirmation bias in which you dismiss the U.S. account, but are only to happy to accept the Italian version because it agrees with your preconceived notions.

[/ QUOTE ]

(shrug) You are still in delusional mode. Nothing I can do about it.

I have put up my version of events. The Italians subsequently release a report that jives with my version. What exactly does that show except that there is at least one side (in possession of more evidence than me, as well) which corroborates my version?

Your claims, on the other hand, suffer quite a it logically, as well as technically. Clock yourself seeing a car approaching, signalling it to stop and then, upon concluding that it does not brake, firing upon it at least eleven rounds or ammo. I sumbit that there was fire with at best concurrent warnings! I submit that this was one poor roadblock in any case.

If you had been paying attention you would also have noticed a little gem that just came out and goes a long way towards explaining the snafu situation that the American troops were (once again) put it: the roadblock, both sides agree, was after a curve.

Can your bandana'd head grasp that?? After a curve.

Even a foolish college Republican would not put a roadblock at a spot which inherentlyprovides the men with little reaction time.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the world's job to provide food/medicine to the Iraqis. That is Saddam's responsibility as the leader of his country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have heard about a thing called "sanctions" ?

It was a little something that prevented food and medicine arriving feeely to Iraq. (It amplifed corruption and abuse, by the way.) Human rights agencies have repeatedly denounced the inhumanity of that particular American action and demanded that the sanctions on medicine and other necessities be eased or lifted outright. They cited thousands of cases of Iraqi children dying as a result of those actions. (Need the hankie now?)

But why worry? You are a Republican, this was done during Bill Clinton's watch, should be easy to dismiss the whole thing as a liberal mistake, no doubt.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I have put up my version of events. The Italians subsequently release a report that jives with my version. What exactly does that show except that there is at least one side (in possession of more evidence than me, as well) which corroborates my version?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously there are multiple sides. My beef with you is that you are going out of your way to simultaneously dismiss the U.S. version and accept the Italian version because it "jives" with your preconcieved notions. That's almost the textbook definition of the confirmation bias.

[ QUOTE ]
Your claims, on the other hand, suffer quite a it logically, as well as technically. Clock yourself seeing a car approaching, signalling it to stop and then, upon concluding that it does not brake, firing upon it at least eleven rounds or ammo. I sumbit that there was fire with at best concurrent warnings! I submit that this was one poor roadblock in any case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we both need to admit that we're both making assumptions without seeing exactly what the scene looked like. Do we know the distance at which the soldiers noticed the car? Do we know for how long the soldiers signaled? Do we know how far the car was when the soldiers opened fire? Do we know the SOP for when to fire on a car that is not slowing down for a checkpoint? I don't. That information is kinda critical in determining whether the soldiers acted recklessly. The U.S. investigation (which has better access to the facts than any of us) has concluded that the soldiers were not reckless. The Italians partly disagree, but also admit that they didn't inform the U.S. of the plan to rescue Sgrena; only that this agent happened to be in Baghdad.

[ QUOTE ]
If you had been paying attention you would also have noticed a little gem that just came out and goes a long way towards explaining the snafu situation that the American troops were (once again) put it: the roadblock, both sides agree, was after a curve.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd need to see the exact stretch of road, but unless this road is like a bobsled course, that shouldn't prevent cars traveling towards the checkpoint from seeing it.

[ QUOTE ]
Even a foolish college Republican would not put a roadblock at a spot which inherentlyprovides the men with little reaction time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently enough time to:
1) notice a car was traveling towards them at 60 mph
2) attempt to signal the car (Accounts I've read say they used light, hand, and warning shots)
3) order the weapons to be unsafed and fired
That takes some time.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But why worry? You are a Republican, this was done during Bill Clinton's watch, should be easy to dismiss the whole thing as a liberal mistake, no doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet you're still bi tching even though we not only removed the sanctions, but removed the leader who was responsible for them. Will anything make you happy?

[smudgex68]

How cme this satellite data is not available to the Italian authorities.

Admit it tw@t, a terrible tragedy committed by young kids who don't know the rules of engagement and have killed approximately 500 innocent Iraqui civilians under similar circumstances. Get your troops trained, and quickly.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're still bi tching even though we not only removed the sanctions, but removed the leader who was responsible for them. Will anything make you happy?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. Signing on an agreement and then keeping it. Example of agreement: international law.

Your kind, on the other hand, buoyed by ephemeral omnipotency, seems to prefer the law of the jungle, instead. A place where might makes right -- we like this guy now for whatever reason, we don't like this guy now for whatever reason. Such a place is full of tombs of people and nations who thought they were immortal.

You will live long enough to find out.

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. investigation (which has better access to the facts than any of us) has concluded that the soldiers were not reckless.

[/ QUOTE ] The U.S. investigation is inherently biased. One might say "with good cause". If the U.S. investigation blames the American soldiers, the morale and command chain will suffer. Especially at roadblock duty.

I have already made my case about the soldiers being "reckless", aka trigger-happy. And I gave the reasons for that. We now have at least one side, the Italians, confirming about the American soldiers' "stress, fatigue and inadequacy". The other side, the Americans, only offer the equivalent of reckless Italian driving! My case is made.

Here's the tough part: Did the American know beforehand and, if yes, how much?

[ QUOTE ]
The Italians ... admit that they didn't inform the U.S. of the plan to rescue Sgrena; only that this agent happened to be in Baghdad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this tremendously hard to accept. Italians staging a rescue operation in ..Iraq without the American military being involved every step of the way?? I don't think so! Italians attempting to spring an ex-hostage out of Iraq and knowing that they need to pass through American roadblocks but not informing any American about that?? Hard to believe - although the Italian stupidity is already evident by them being in Iraq already!

The clincher: the American side claims that the Italian general who was in Iraq, to supervise the operation no doubt, upon learning that the hostage was freed and would be making a run towards safety in a car, said to his American aide, a captain, that the car's ride "best be kept secret". The American captain now says he took that to mean "a direct order" not to inform anyone else, not even his superior American officers!

...I most certainly don't think so.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Admit it, twat, a terrible tragedy committed by young kids who don't know the rules of engagement and have killed approximately 500 innocent Iraqi civilians under similar circumstances. Get your troops trained, and quickly.

[/ QUOTE ] Italian female acquaintance, voting for Forza in Verona, is furious with the American whitewashing. That's one lost vote for Silvio, she stays at home this time.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Signing on an agreement and then keeping it. Example of agreement: international law.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course! An "agreement"! Why didn't we think of that!...
Saddam has shown that his willingness to uphold international law has been splotchy at best, yes?

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. investigation is inherently biased.

[/ QUOTE ]
As is the Italian investigation.

[ QUOTE ]
We now have at least one side, the Italians, confirming about the American soldiers' "stress, fatigue and inadequacy".

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever wondered how the Italians know the physical condition of specific U.S. soldiers at this one roadblock?

As far as the rescue operation, unless you have other evidence, you're just guessing. I thought I remembered back when it happened that there was talk that the U.S. didn't want the Italians to cave in to the kidnappers, but the Italians went ahead anyway. That could be one reason why they didn't tell the U.S. about the specific plan.

[ QUOTE ]
the American side claims that the Italian general who was in Iraq, to supervise the operation no doubt, upon learning that the hostage was freed and would be making a run towards safety in a car, said to his American aide, a captain, that the car's ride "best be kept secret". The American captain now says he took that to mean "a direct order" not to inform anyone else, not even his superior American officers!

[/ QUOTE ]
He was the general's aide. If he was Private Joe Blow, the story might be different, but as an aide, I'm sure he takes orders (to some degree) from him. There are dozens of reasons to keep this a secret temporarily.