Italian Hostage

Why did the Americans shoot at the car? THey surely knew that the Italian hostage was in there and they still fired.

Why did the Americans lie about the number of agents? There are three but the American says there is just one (who was killed) but there are two other injured agents.

The captors of the hostage warned the Italian hostage that the Americans don't want her back alive, why?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Comp_Genius

and the shots didn't come from soldiers standing at a checkpoint.

``It wasn't a checkpoint, but a patrol that started shooting after pointing some lights in our direction,'' the Ansa news agency cited Sgrena as telling the prosecutors. ``We hadn't previously encountered any checkpoint, and we didn't understand where the shots came from.''

Reply 2

RetiredAccount89

darkenergy

Hmmm, well it is debatable whether the kidnapping and slaying of a journalist for a paper that was highly anti-war would stir up the readers into more of a pro war stance, or deepen their resolve that the war was wrong.
However, I'm doubting this was a thought out thing. I would put money on that the many American sollys there (particulary reservists) are all but cracking, and are now basically shooting anything that moves. Whether that is better or worse than this conspiracy theory of deliberately targeting the italians (which im very cynical about) is another matter

Reply 3

technik

darkenergy

Why did the Americans shoot at the car?

they clearly believed it was a threat

Reply 4

RetiredAccount89

technik

they clearly believed it was a threat

But the question is "does perception excuse action?"

Reply 5

Comp_Genius

I am sure the american intelligence agency knows the hostage is coming back, heading towards the airport.
I doubt they dont know about it

Reply 6

Vienna

darkenergy

Why did the Americans shoot at the car? THey surely knew that the Italian hostage was in there and they still fired.

They assessed the car as a security threat. They had no knowledge of the Italian hostage situation.

Reply 7

Vienna

darkenergy

They failed to inform the US of their operation, they failed to stop at a checkpoint. At night, travelling at considerable speed, this would justify a security threat.

Reply 8

Vienna

darkenergy

I am sure the american intelligence agency knows the hostage is coming back, heading towards the airport.
I doubt they dont know about it

They had no knowledge. The Italians never informed the US.

Reply 9

Vienna

foolfarian

But the question is "does perception excuse action?"

In this case, yes.

Reply 10

RetiredAccount89

vienna95

They failed to inform the US of their operation, they failed to stop at a checkpoint. At night, travelling at considerable speed, this would justify a security threat.

THe first hand witnesses in the car report that there was no checkpoint, and that they thought it was a random patrol that fired upon them. As we have had no 1st hand statements from the US side of things, i think it displays your typical bias to immediately jump to the defence of the US military.
Lets just wait until more is known shall we.

Reply 11

foolfarian

But the question is "does perception excuse action?"

I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of the American soldiers themselves. It could have been terrorists trying to kill them so they are bound to have a 'better safe than sorry' policy.

Reply 12

shadowkin

Yes. Put yourself in their shoes. You are an army grunt, who only signed up to get some money, the last place you want to be is IraK. So what do you do? Give yourself a feeling of authority by shooting your gun like a raving lunatic.

Or you are a young soldier, proud to be in the American army but not totally sure of yourself; you're inexperienced. You've got a family at home and a girlfriend. You can't wait to see them again. You feel threatened and you feel you have to do something to make sure you survive. You've always got to look after number one.

Reply 13

shadowkin

Looking after number one...similar to the killing of an Iraqi insurgent I think, where the insurgent was wounded and could not defend himself, and was no longer a threat, and the American soldier shot him dead.

Yes. I think I will stick to my version.

It's easy to criticise when you're sitting at home on your computer in a safe country.

It's very different when you're actually in a hostile country. There isn't always time to make a reasoned decision.

I don't think I could do what a lot of soldiers out there are doing and so I refuse to be critical of them apart from in extreme circumstances.

Reply 14

shadowkin

Ok then. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraq insurgent.
Do you think it is fair for people to criticise them?

I can understand things from an insurgents' point of view.

shadowkin

I could never do what a soldier does. I don't think I could handle the thought I murdered someone, after invading a country that could never defend itself due to sanctions imposed by the UN.

Would you have preferred Saddam Hussein to put up a defence? At least the soldiers are fighting for democracy.

And where would we be without soldiers, eh?

I can understand your points of view but I think you should focus more on the governments than the individual soldiers.

Reply 15

Weejimmie

It is said that a ransom of £5 or £6 million was paid for her release. It shouldn't have been paid. She went willingly and should have taken her chances. Criminals have been encouraged to kidnap again.

Reply 16

Vienna

foolfarian

THe first hand witnesses in the car report that there was no checkpoint, and that they thought it was a random patrol that fired upon them.
As we have had no 1st hand statements from the US side of things, i think it displays your typical bias to immediately jump to the defence of the US military.
Lets just wait until more is known shall we.

A US Army statement on events has been widely reported. Based on the US account and the substantiated 'facts' as supported by the Italian account, I formulated an opinion. For the benefit of the forum, in smearing my opinions as biased, can you offer any evidence or substantiation to this effect, or are you willing to retract yet another silly personal remark?

Reply 17

Vienna

shadowkin

He remained a possible threat. You have a split second to make a decision.

Reply 18

Vienna

shadowkin

I am sorry vienna but once again you are wrong.

He was injured..injured people should be taken as prisoners of war.
God only knows what would have happened to him then.

i) Being injured does not mean a threat no longer exists. As events just hours before had shown, insurgents had faked death or injury in order to draw American soldiers close, before blowing themselves up. This would be in the forefront of any soldier's mind.

ii) To qualify as prisoners of war they have to meet with criteria as defined in the third Geneva Convention.

iii) What am I wrong about?

iv) What part of the third Geneva Convention states that any injured person qualifies for Prisoner of War status?

Reply 19

shadowkin

Maybe if Saddam Hussein did put a 'defence' it would have proved that *perhaps* going to war in the first place may have been on some very small ground understandable.

But more fighting = more deaths.

fighting for democracy? I wonder what they would do if some religious extremist group that wanted the US out (therefore no oil)...

I don't think this "they only went in for oil" argument stands up anymore. Why are they devoting so much time to establishing a government, a constitution etc?

Well if we had fewer humans who had the idiot mentality to join the army perhaps we would be in a better place.

A world that had no armies would probably be a better one, but obviously we need an army to protect us in the world that we live in at the moment. Strong armies, ironically, are what allow you to have your liberal principles.

To call all soldiers "idiots" is not worth a rebuttal.

You mean the government or the generals who are at the top in the army, giving out the orders? Or maybe we need to look at the officials in the pentagon.

They're all effectively the same, but it's the President/Prime Minister in USA/UK who actually decides to go to war and who issues the diretives. Civil servents and Generals clearly play a big role as well though.

I think you should direct you anger at these people rather than the soldiers on the ground. They're only obeying orders.