If you are actually familiar with the road in question under current conditions (and I don't know the US designation, so I can't tell), I defer to your knowledge. However, my understanding is that this particular road on which the Italians were traveling is accessible only via the Green Zone, after passing some six checkpoints into the Green Zone and which then leads directly to the airport.
Since this route is designated "secure", it would seem to me to mean three things: 1) you don't get on that road without permission; 2) you don't expect to get hit on that road; 3) the reason for the limited checkpoints ON the road is that the road is MONITORED - I don't know what else the concept of "secure" might mean. If you know differently, explicate and I'll accept that.
As for the Italians being in communication, since they had to go THROUGH the Green Zone to get to the road, which is then a few minutes from the airport, I find it hard to comprehend that they just buzzed through six checkpoints to get on that road and NOBODY bothered to communicate that said vehicle carrying Italian nationals with a rescued hostage were not en route to the airport - presumably to catch a plane to Italy.
Leave aside the commo problems at the checkpoint - if the command at the airport did not know who was coming, this strikes me as completely ridiculous. Therefore they HAD to know almost up the minute that the Italians were present on the road.
Whether they could communicate this to the checkpoint is another matter. According to the report their VoIP went out and all them had was their FM equipment - no explanation as to why this was not usable for command and control. Perhaps you have some insight into this.
I know when I was in Vietnam pulling guard duty, when the Duty Officer came around, we called down the line on our field phones to alert the other guard posts. I would imagine the same sort of thing to still be in place given the significance of this vehicle (not to mention the fact that this vehicle was entering the road just after Negroponte had passed - are they saying no attempt was made to communicate this fact to the checkpoint assigned to secure Negroponte's passage?)
Also, my understanding is that this WAS a checkpoint as the armored unit in question was thirty feet to the side of the road and was not directly visible to the Italians until at least a spotlight and/or laser was used. The driver stated he began to stop immediately, but within seconds took fire, whereupon he sped up. If it was a roadblock, speeding up would make no sense - where is he going to go? His description of the approach and the events is consistent with numerous Iraqi civilian cases where the soldiers at the checkpoint opened fire when the suspect vehicle was possibly 100 meters away - long before they could have identified the vehicle as suspect. In this case, most of the rounds entered the vehicle from the right and the rear indicating the vehicle was fired on as it was PASSING the checkpoint - if not actually driving away.
Finally, I'm well aware that the military makes statements similar to yours regarding what is SOP about protecting civilians, etc.
Unfortunately, there are too many documented cases where that SOP simply is not followed by the troops on the ground. And the fact that your unit might not be one of those abrogating the rules doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and happen frequently.
And nothing you said about the situation of a soldier in combat changes the fact that the military is OBLIGATED under US and international law to prevent those sorts of things from happening. My point is that if the US military cannot do so, it needs to remove itself from Iraq. What happens afterward is the responsibility of the Iraqi people, not the US.
And in fact, that was the case with regard to Saddam and their government in general - just as it is with our people. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that there was absolutely NO reason to invade Iraq other than "regime
Very graphic - unfortunately with no supporting details, so you won't mind if I call bullshit.
Not to mention that my experience in this does not matter since I rely on the experiences of those who have had them to determine what is proper conduct and what isn't.
Check out David Hackworth's site if you need that sort of detail on how incompetent people are in the military. He gets first hand reports from Iraq troops every day stating exactly that.
Okay - let's trade stories about US atrocities committed in Vietnam and those from my country - the United States.
Idiot.
From a moron who probably has never been in the military - AS I HAVE - and in a combat zone - AS I HAVE - IN VIETNAM. (Note that I don't claim to have personally engaged in combat with an enemy - since I don't count the Vung Ro Bay attack in June 1978 as that was a half mile away from my position - not that we knew that at the time.)
Now we'll wait (forever) for Andrew to retract his retraction claim...
My question is: why did Andrew make a big deal of this? It seems like an incredibly minor point one way or the other. PJ appears to have merely put together a hypothesis that one of SCO's claims was incorrect. Andrew appears to want to pounce on this as being some huge mistake on PJ's part.
Is this some "journalistic war" because the Register hasn't done (and can't do, given its nature) as good a job as Groklaw in covering the SCO case? Is it a slow news day now that the Tridge-Linus fight appears to be over?
Who gives a shit? The SCO case is history and is going to die just as soon as the judge finally admits (after giving them all the rope SCO needs) SCO has NO evidence whatsoever of their claims.
"And everybody knows that Italians are beyond the capability of lying...especially when it might serve well to cover up for their own mistakes"
s/Italians/US military/g;
As for panic shooting, there have been literally hundreds of such incidents resulting in the deaths of Iraqi civilians and foreign journalists in the last two years. It's QUITE common knowledge that US troops are trigger-happy fucktards - even the British troops have said so.
As for the USA and USMC, I was IN the US military for three years including a year in Vietnam. I KNOW how stupid and incompetent the US military mind is first hand.
And fuck them. They ARE morons. Stupid lames who can't get a job in the real world. The only thing dumber than a military man is an EX-military man working as a Federal corrections officer because he was too stupid to make it in the military - and I've known them, too.
Bodies returned to Italy would be examined by a medical examiner - shots to the head would be a little obvious.
While it is not certain the intent was to assassinate Sgrena and the agents, it is highly likely that the idiots at the checkpoint were the same trigger-happy morons who have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi civilians and a number of foreign journalists due to their fear and incompetence.
And blaming this on fear of resistance attacks merely means that the US military is comprised of lames who should not be in the military and who are led by people who have no clue how to deal with urban combat.
I was in the military for three years including a year in Vietnam. I KNOW how stupid the US military mind is and how incompetent it's operations are. No one who hasn't been in the military would believe HOW stupid and incompetent these people are.
First of all, the US is happy to whip out satellite photos to "prove" it's case. But not to bother monitoring an important diplomatic vehicle. Right.
Second, the people involved HAD ALREADY PASSED SEVERAL CHECKPOINTS. They THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE just minutes from the airport. They did not expect to be fired on WITHOUT WARNING. (Claims about lights and lasers are so much horseshit from the US military - either that or they were done so stupidly that no vehicle could expect to see them. )
And more importantly, US troops in Iraq are KNOWN - from hundreds of incidents - to be trigger-happy and incompetent about manning checkpoints. And blaming this on fear of resistance attacks merely excuses US military incompetence. If the US can't handle urban combat, get out of the country.
Because it's the SAME "simple tragedy" that has been occurring hundreds of times for the last two years resulting in the murder of hundreds or even thousands of Iraqi civilians due to simple US military incompetence and lack of interest in either preventing unnecessary deaths or in the existence of Iraqi civilians.
US troops are incompetent murdering idiots and that's the bottom line. This time they got caught doing it on a member of an ally state - which is why they are lying through their teeth about the incident in probably every respect - not that they haven't lied about every incident previously.
Apparently it's okay to murder Iraqi civilians and foreign journalists with impunity. If that's what you think, have the balls to say so.
The entire story to date - just this morning, in fact - is that the Italians were in contact with the US command up to 25 minutes after the release of Sgrena.
I repeat, they were on a SECURE road - meaning, obviously, that the road was lined with US checkpoints more so than the well-known "airport" road which is the most dangerous road in Iraq. The Italians pointed out that they had already passed several US checkpoints (not Iraqi checkpoints) and were a few minutes from the airport when the incident occurred.
Secondly, if I had Italian agents wandering around the area trying to free a prominent hostage, I'd be keeping tabs on them as well as possible - which would mean constant contact via cell phone and ELINT monitoring and possibly US escorts (the latter I suspect the Italians refused for obvious reasons). If not, the US military and the CIA are less intelligent even than I think.
While it is not clear that the US actually intended to assassinate Sgrena and the Italian agents, it IS clear from the literally hundreds or thousands of US killings at checkpoints - often when the vehicle involved is at least a hundred meters from the checkpoint and no identification of the occupants is even possible - that the US troops are trigger-happy morons with no regard for the local population in an urban combat situation.
While it is fashionable to babble about how they are scared of the resistance car bombs, it would behoove them a) not to join the military if they can't handle it; b) design their operations to minimize the threat without having to wholesale murder the population; c) pull out of Iraq if the can't handle it. Anything else is an excuse, nothing more.
Wrong again - this is not the usual six-mile road to the airport that the insurgents hit every day. If that were the case, nobody would be surprised at the outcome.
If you've got that wrong, you've obviously got it all wrong.
As for sources, do your own Google. The story's certainly had enough play.
This was the secure road from the largest US base in the country directly to the airport. The US ambassador just used it a half hour earlier.
What are the odds that IRAQI forces of ANY kind were allowed to man checkpoints on that road, given the unreliable nature of Iraqi forces?
I don't think so.
If it was, then that's more demonstration of US military incompetence. There's NO WAY you could justify using Iraqi forces on that road to man checkpoints - I don't care if you're married to the Iraqi commander's sister.
It is NOT clear that US forces weren't informed. While it is possible the local troops weren't, the Italians have made it clear that the Italian commander was in contact with the US command and that the car was on a secure road with US military permission. They had already passed several checkpoints - does the US mean to say that checkpoints do not relay down the line that a vehicle is coming on a SECURE ROAD? I doubt that very much. Even in Vietnam, on guard duty, when the Duty Officer comes around, you call down the line on your field phone to tell the rest of the guard posts he's coming!
The reports says the checkpoint troops had VoIP AND FM. The VoIP went out, but the report merely says that the officer did not use his FM to communicate to his HQ. This is an obfuscation - if he had NO commo ability, he would have sent someone to restore it. Therefore he had commo ability and could be and undoubtedly was informed from the last checkpoint that the vehicle passed and was proceeding in his direction.
If this isn't how it went down, then it only demonstrates the incredible incompetence of the US military - which in my experience in Vietnam is a given.
If they had satellite photos of that vehicle, you KNOW that vehicle was under constant surveillance and electronic monitoring of the cell phone usage in the vehicle.
That car was on a secure road with permission from the US and the Italian commander was in contact with the US command. The only thing the US didn't know (supposedly and I doubt that was true) was that it was Sgrena in the car.
They were not "zooming" and there was no checkpoint.
Read the story. The speed of the vehicle was no more than 40mph - on a SECURE road - and the "checkpoint" was an armored vehicle and some troops thirty feet off to the side of the road - a common enough sight in Iraq and one which does NOT indicate a "checkpoint".
Also, the Italian agent in charge had already rescued TWO OTHER hostages in Iraq - who had been critical of the US occupation. I'd say that was about as much experience as he needed - and about as much reason for the US to deliberate target a left-wing journalist. If anything, the only mistake the agent made was in not moving Sgrena directly into the Green Zone instead of to the airport - thus giving the US an opportunity to conduct another of their "checkpoint assassinations."
That might be true if it weren't happening on a "secure" road. But it did.
Therefore one has to ask who did the troops think was in the car? Iraqis? Resistance? On a secure road which leads directly between the largest US base in the country and the airport?
The vehicle had permission from the US to be on that road. The vehicle was undoubtedly being monitored by electronic intelligence and the US military should have known where it was at all times. The Italians claim the US did not know who was in the car, but I find that doubtful as well, especially as cell phones were in use in the vehicle.
And the final damning piece of evidence is the US refusal to allow the Italian investigators to inspect the vehicle. That smells of coverup all around.
The Italian agent was hit from behind, as was Sgrena.
The so-called "roadblock" was ten meters off to the side of the road which is not how you do a roadblock.
There were NO signals - that is the usual Pentagon cover-up.
The simple fact is that US troops with nothing better to do fired on a vehicle passing them at a reasonable rate of speed (40mph or less), on a supposedly "secure" road, a vehicle which was known to be on that road with the permission of the US military (but without, supposedly, the US military knowing who was in the car - but as has been pointed out elsewhere, cell phones were in use in the car and undoubtedly monitored by the US).
There's little doubt that the attack was deliberate - what is not certain is whether it was intended to kill Sgrena or was merely another example of US troops murdering "Iraqis" for no known reason other than boredom.
Although one has to wonder whether "Iraqis" would have been on that secure road - if not, then who did they think they were shooting at? I think that pretty clearly puts the odds on a deliberate attack which only failed because it was intended to be disguised as a "roadblock accident".
The shots were fired FIRST at a NON-SPEEDING car, as the testimony above makes clear.
Since everyone knows that US troops follow up a warning shot by spraying cars with hundreds of rounds in a panic, the driver sped up. While this might have been a mistake, the extra speed probably saved everyone's life except the one agent by making it less easy for the US troops to riddle the car.
In any event, the whole incident demonstrates the usual incompetence and poor training of the US military. Since the US was fully informed about the rescue mission, they should have been fully aware of the position of the vehicle and its occupants on what was a "secure" road. If some morons at a roadblock were not informed, this clearly shows massive incompetence.
Personally I agree with Sgrena's take: they were shot at deliberately on orders of the US military high command and the CIA. The only element indicating this might not be the case is the fact that they survived at all.
Which might be simply due to the incompetence of the morons at the roadblock.
In case nobody has noticed, they have a Cuban terrorist sitting in Miami right now asking for asylum who bombed an airliner killing 73 people including an Italian citizen - and the Bush government is saying nothing about it.
Why?
Because he was against Castro, that's why.
If you're on "our" side, you're not a terrorist, apparently, no matter how many civilians you kill.
Not to mention the neocon support of that anti-Iranian group in northern Iraq who have engaged in terrorism against Iran.
The fact of the matter is the US government has supported terrorism nearly as much, if not more so, than the Russian government used to do. It's just that the US seems to support state terrorism more than resistance terrorism.
And most of them are undoubtedly innocent of any enemy activity since they were rounded up in the usual ham-handed group arrests our morons in Iraq have been performing since day one.
No charges filed against virtually all of them for over two years tells you all you need to know.
No doubt there are a few actual Taliban personnel there (who probably should be treated under the Geneva convention), but how many Al Qaeda has not been demonstrated by anyone so far.
In other words, the US public shouldn't be told how incredibly incompetent US commanders really are and how trigger-happy and incompetent US troops really are.
And I say this having seen exactly this in Vietnam forty years ago.
"unless, of course, you're the type of person that wants to see United States and Iraqi citizens blown to pieces."
I resemble that remark!
In this case, however, it's tin foil hat thinking to believe the Iraqi insurgency already doesn't know every detail of US SOP - they've been viewing it for two years and they learn fast.
Not to mention that US SOP is incompetent at best.
In any event, the details are also irrelevant in this case since it's clear from the Italian testimony that a:) they were on a "secure" road (if such a thing exists in Iraq); b) the "roadblock" was a hundred meters from the road and consisted of a tank and a few soldiers; c) the roadblock should have been removed a half hour earlier (which is equally irrelevant since it wasn't necessary in the first place if the road was really "secure"); d) every statement made by the US concerning this incident is a bold-faced, emphasized lie in italics - just like it has been in every other case of civilian shootings in Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are actually familiar with the road in question under current conditions (and I don't know the US designation, so I can't tell), I defer to your knowledge. However, my understanding is that this particular road on which the Italians were traveling is accessible only via the Green Zone, after passing some six checkpoints into the Green Zone and which then leads directly to the airport.
Since this route is designated "secure", it would seem to me to mean three things: 1) you don't get on that road without permission; 2) you don't expect to get hit on that road; 3) the reason for the limited checkpoints ON the road is that the road is MONITORED - I don't know what else the concept of "secure" might mean. If you know differently, explicate and I'll accept that.
As for the Italians being in communication, since they had to go THROUGH the Green Zone to get to the road, which is then a few minutes from the airport, I find it hard to comprehend that they just buzzed through six checkpoints to get on that road and NOBODY bothered to communicate that said vehicle carrying Italian nationals with a rescued hostage were not en route to the airport - presumably to catch a plane to Italy.
Leave aside the commo problems at the checkpoint - if the command at the airport did not know who was coming, this strikes me as completely ridiculous. Therefore they HAD to know almost up the minute that the Italians were present on the road.
Whether they could communicate this to the checkpoint is another matter. According to the report their VoIP went out and all them had was their FM equipment - no explanation as to why this was not usable for command and control. Perhaps you have some insight into this.
I know when I was in Vietnam pulling guard duty, when the Duty Officer came around, we called down the line on our field phones to alert the other guard posts. I would imagine the same sort of thing to still be in place given the significance of this vehicle (not to mention the fact that this vehicle was entering the road just after Negroponte had passed - are they saying no attempt was made to communicate this fact to the checkpoint assigned to secure Negroponte's passage?)
Also, my understanding is that this WAS a checkpoint as the armored unit in question was thirty feet to the side of the road and was not directly visible to the Italians until at least a spotlight and/or laser was used. The driver stated he began to stop immediately, but within seconds took fire, whereupon he sped up. If it was a roadblock, speeding up would make no sense - where is he going to go? His description of the approach and the events is consistent with numerous Iraqi civilian cases where the soldiers at the checkpoint opened fire when the suspect vehicle was possibly 100 meters away - long before they could have identified the vehicle as suspect. In this case, most of the rounds entered the vehicle from the right and the rear indicating the vehicle was fired on as it was PASSING the checkpoint - if not actually driving away.
Finally, I'm well aware that the military makes statements similar to yours regarding what is SOP about protecting civilians, etc.
Unfortunately, there are too many documented cases where that SOP simply is not followed by the troops on the ground. And the fact that your unit might not be one of those abrogating the rules doesn't mean it doesn't happen - and happen frequently.
And nothing you said about the situation of a soldier in combat changes the fact that the military is OBLIGATED under US and international law to prevent those sorts of things from happening. My point is that if the US military cannot do so, it needs to remove itself from Iraq. What happens afterward is the responsibility of the Iraqi people, not the US.
And in fact, that was the case with regard to Saddam and their government in general - just as it is with our people. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that there was absolutely NO reason to invade Iraq other than "regime
Very graphic - unfortunately with no supporting details, so you won't mind if I call bullshit.
Not to mention that my experience in this does not matter since I rely on the experiences of those who have had them to determine what is proper conduct and what isn't.
Check out David Hackworth's site if you need that sort of detail on how incompetent people are in the military. He gets first hand reports from Iraq troops every day stating exactly that.
And THAT effectively ends this argument.
I didn't say I was an officer.
I WILL say it was the second dumbest thing I ever did.
Okay - let's trade stories about US atrocities committed in Vietnam and those from my country - the United States.
Idiot.
From a moron who probably has never been in the military - AS I HAVE - and in a combat zone - AS I HAVE - IN VIETNAM. (Note that I don't claim to have personally engaged in combat with an enemy - since I don't count the Vung Ro Bay attack in June 1978 as that was a half mile away from my position - not that we knew that at the time.)
'Nuff said.
Well, not quite. To quote Aleister Crowley, "The Christians to the lions!"
Yes - that DOES mean I would like to see you all exterminated to the last man, woman and child.
And I will.
Have a nice day.
Now we'll wait (forever) for Andrew to retract his retraction claim...
My question is: why did Andrew make a big deal of this? It seems like an incredibly minor point one way or the other. PJ appears to have merely put together a hypothesis that one of SCO's claims was incorrect. Andrew appears to want to pounce on this as being some huge mistake on PJ's part.
Is this some "journalistic war" because the Register hasn't done (and can't do, given its nature) as good a job as Groklaw in covering the SCO case? Is it a slow news day now that the Tridge-Linus fight appears to be over?
Who gives a shit? The SCO case is history and is going to die just as soon as the judge finally admits (after giving them all the rope SCO needs) SCO has NO evidence whatsoever of their claims.
"And everybody knows that Italians are beyond the capability of lying...especially when it might serve well to cover up for their own mistakes"
s/Italians/US military/g;
As for panic shooting, there have been literally hundreds of such incidents resulting in the deaths of Iraqi civilians and foreign journalists in the last two years. It's QUITE common knowledge that US troops are trigger-happy fucktards - even the British troops have said so.
As for the USA and USMC, I was IN the US military for three years including a year in Vietnam. I KNOW how stupid and incompetent the US military mind is first hand.
And fuck them. They ARE morons. Stupid lames who can't get a job in the real world. The only thing dumber than a military man is an EX-military man working as a Federal corrections officer because he was too stupid to make it in the military - and I've known them, too.
Bodies returned to Italy would be examined by a medical examiner - shots to the head would be a little obvious.
While it is not certain the intent was to assassinate Sgrena and the agents, it is highly likely that the idiots at the checkpoint were the same trigger-happy morons who have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi civilians and a number of foreign journalists due to their fear and incompetence.
And blaming this on fear of resistance attacks merely means that the US military is comprised of lames who should not be in the military and who are led by people who have no clue how to deal with urban combat.
I was in the military for three years including a year in Vietnam. I KNOW how stupid the US military mind is and how incompetent it's operations are. No one who hasn't been in the military would believe HOW stupid and incompetent these people are.
First of all, the US is happy to whip out satellite photos to "prove" it's case. But not to bother monitoring an important diplomatic vehicle. Right.
Second, the people involved HAD ALREADY PASSED SEVERAL CHECKPOINTS. They THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE just minutes from the airport. They did not expect to be fired on WITHOUT WARNING. (Claims about lights and lasers are so much horseshit from the US military - either that or they were done so stupidly that no vehicle could expect to see them. )
And more importantly, US troops in Iraq are KNOWN - from hundreds of incidents - to be trigger-happy and incompetent about manning checkpoints. And blaming this on fear of resistance attacks merely excuses US military incompetence. If the US can't handle urban combat, get out of the country.
I'm not referring to Bosch.
This is another guy - Luis Posada Carriles. Google for the story.
Because it's the SAME "simple tragedy" that has been occurring hundreds of times for the last two years resulting in the murder of hundreds or even thousands of Iraqi civilians due to simple US military incompetence and lack of interest in either preventing unnecessary deaths or in the existence of Iraqi civilians.
US troops are incompetent murdering idiots and that's the bottom line. This time they got caught doing it on a member of an ally state - which is why they are lying through their teeth about the incident in probably every respect - not that they haven't lied about every incident previously.
Apparently it's okay to murder Iraqi civilians and foreign journalists with impunity. If that's what you think, have the balls to say so.
Obviously you are the one not up with the news.
The entire story to date - just this morning, in fact - is that the Italians were in contact with the US command up to 25 minutes after the release of Sgrena.
I repeat, they were on a SECURE road - meaning, obviously, that the road was lined with US checkpoints more so than the well-known "airport" road which is the most dangerous road in Iraq. The Italians pointed out that they had already passed several US checkpoints (not Iraqi checkpoints) and were a few minutes from the airport when the incident occurred.
Secondly, if I had Italian agents wandering around the area trying to free a prominent hostage, I'd be keeping tabs on them as well as possible - which would mean constant contact via cell phone and ELINT monitoring and possibly US escorts (the latter I suspect the Italians refused for obvious reasons). If not, the US military and the CIA are less intelligent even than I think.
While it is not clear that the US actually intended to assassinate Sgrena and the Italian agents, it IS clear from the literally hundreds or thousands of US killings at checkpoints - often when the vehicle involved is at least a hundred meters from the checkpoint and no identification of the occupants is even possible - that the US troops are trigger-happy morons with no regard for the local population in an urban combat situation.
While it is fashionable to babble about how they are scared of the resistance car bombs, it would behoove them a) not to join the military if they can't handle it; b) design their operations to minimize the threat without having to wholesale murder the population; c) pull out of Iraq if the can't handle it. Anything else is an excuse, nothing more.
Wrong again - this is not the usual six-mile road to the airport that the insurgents hit every day. If that were the case, nobody would be surprised at the outcome.
If you've got that wrong, you've obviously got it all wrong.
As for sources, do your own Google. The story's certainly had enough play.
That sounds right, except for one thing:
This was the secure road from the largest US base in the country directly to the airport. The US ambassador just used it a half hour earlier.
What are the odds that IRAQI forces of ANY kind were allowed to man checkpoints on that road, given the unreliable nature of Iraqi forces?
I don't think so.
If it was, then that's more demonstration of US military incompetence. There's NO WAY you could justify using Iraqi forces on that road to man checkpoints - I don't care if you're married to the Iraqi commander's sister.
It is NOT clear that US forces weren't informed. While it is possible the local troops weren't, the Italians have made it clear that the Italian commander was in contact with the US command and that the car was on a secure road with US military permission. They had already passed several checkpoints - does the US mean to say that checkpoints do not relay down the line that a vehicle is coming on a SECURE ROAD? I doubt that very much. Even in Vietnam, on guard duty, when the Duty Officer comes around, you call down the line on your field phone to tell the rest of the guard posts he's coming!
The reports says the checkpoint troops had VoIP AND FM. The VoIP went out, but the report merely says that the officer did not use his FM to communicate to his HQ. This is an obfuscation - if he had NO commo ability, he would have sent someone to restore it. Therefore he had commo ability and could be and undoubtedly was informed from the last checkpoint that the vehicle passed and was proceeding in his direction.
If this isn't how it went down, then it only demonstrates the incredible incompetence of the US military - which in my experience in Vietnam is a given.
Fake satellite photos say otherwise.
If they had satellite photos of that vehicle, you KNOW that vehicle was under constant surveillance and electronic monitoring of the cell phone usage in the vehicle.
That car was on a secure road with permission from the US and the Italian commander was in contact with the US command. The only thing the US didn't know (supposedly and I doubt that was true) was that it was Sgrena in the car.
Moron.
They were not "zooming" and there was no checkpoint.
Read the story. The speed of the vehicle was no more than 40mph - on a SECURE road - and the "checkpoint" was an armored vehicle and some troops thirty feet off to the side of the road - a common enough sight in Iraq and one which does NOT indicate a "checkpoint".
Also, the Italian agent in charge had already rescued TWO OTHER hostages in Iraq - who had been critical of the US occupation. I'd say that was about as much experience as he needed - and about as much reason for the US to deliberate target a left-wing journalist. If anything, the only mistake the agent made was in not moving Sgrena directly into the Green Zone instead of to the airport - thus giving the US an opportunity to conduct another of their "checkpoint assassinations."
That might be true if it weren't happening on a "secure" road. But it did.
Therefore one has to ask who did the troops think was in the car? Iraqis? Resistance? On a secure road which leads directly between the largest US base in the country and the airport?
The vehicle had permission from the US to be on that road. The vehicle was undoubtedly being monitored by electronic intelligence and the US military should have known where it was at all times. The Italians claim the US did not know who was in the car, but I find that doubtful as well, especially as cell phones were in use in the vehicle.
And the final damning piece of evidence is the US refusal to allow the Italian investigators to inspect the vehicle. That smells of coverup all around.
Wrong.
The Italian agent was hit from behind, as was Sgrena.
The so-called "roadblock" was ten meters off to the side of the road which is not how you do a roadblock.
There were NO signals - that is the usual Pentagon cover-up.
The simple fact is that US troops with nothing better to do fired on a vehicle passing them at a reasonable rate of speed (40mph or less), on a supposedly "secure" road, a vehicle which was known to be on that road with the permission of the US military (but without, supposedly, the US military knowing who was in the car - but as has been pointed out elsewhere, cell phones were in use in the car and undoubtedly monitored by the US).
There's little doubt that the attack was deliberate - what is not certain is whether it was intended to kill Sgrena or was merely another example of US troops murdering "Iraqis" for no known reason other than boredom.
Although one has to wonder whether "Iraqis" would have been on that secure road - if not, then who did they think they were shooting at? I think that pretty clearly puts the odds on a deliberate attack which only failed because it was intended to be disguised as a "roadblock accident".
Incorrect.
The shots were fired FIRST at a NON-SPEEDING car, as the testimony above makes clear.
Since everyone knows that US troops follow up a warning shot by spraying cars with hundreds of rounds in a panic, the driver sped up. While this might have been a mistake, the extra speed probably saved everyone's life except the one agent by making it less easy for the US troops to riddle the car.
In any event, the whole incident demonstrates the usual incompetence and poor training of the US military. Since the US was fully informed about the rescue mission, they should have been fully aware of the position of the vehicle and its occupants on what was a "secure" road. If some morons at a roadblock were not informed, this clearly shows massive incompetence.
Personally I agree with Sgrena's take: they were shot at deliberately on orders of the US military high command and the CIA. The only element indicating this might not be the case is the fact that they survived at all.
Which might be simply due to the incompetence of the morons at the roadblock.
In case nobody has noticed, they have a Cuban terrorist sitting in Miami right now asking for asylum who bombed an airliner killing 73 people including an Italian citizen - and the Bush government is saying nothing about it.
Why?
Because he was against Castro, that's why.
If you're on "our" side, you're not a terrorist, apparently, no matter how many civilians you kill.
Not to mention the neocon support of that anti-Iranian group in northern Iraq who have engaged in terrorism against Iran.
The fact of the matter is the US government has supported terrorism nearly as much, if not more so, than the Russian government used to do. It's just that the US seems to support state terrorism more than resistance terrorism.
The hypocrisy doesn't get any deeper.
And most of them are undoubtedly innocent of any enemy activity since they were rounded up in the usual ham-handed group arrests our morons in Iraq have been performing since day one.
No charges filed against virtually all of them for over two years tells you all you need to know.
No doubt there are a few actual Taliban personnel there (who probably should be treated under the Geneva convention), but how many Al Qaeda has not been demonstrated by anyone so far.
In other words, the US public shouldn't be told how incredibly incompetent US commanders really are and how trigger-happy and incompetent US troops really are.
And I say this having seen exactly this in Vietnam forty years ago.
"unless, of course, you're the type of person that wants to see United States and Iraqi citizens blown to pieces."
I resemble that remark!
In this case, however, it's tin foil hat thinking to believe the Iraqi insurgency already doesn't know every detail of US SOP - they've been viewing it for two years and they learn fast.
Not to mention that US SOP is incompetent at best.
In any event, the details are also irrelevant in this case since it's clear from the Italian testimony that a:) they were on a "secure" road (if such a thing exists in Iraq); b) the "roadblock" was a hundred meters from the road and consisted of a tank and a few soldiers; c) the roadblock should have been removed a half hour earlier (which is equally irrelevant since it wasn't necessary in the first place if the road was really "secure"); d) every statement made by the US concerning this incident is a bold-faced, emphasized lie in italics - just like it has been in every other case of civilian shootings in Iraq.
It will run Novell's Exchange equivalent - or one of the several other Exchange equivalents presently available.
Do keep up with the news.