Turn on thread page Beta

Italian Hostage watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    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?
    You deny ever having had a bias towards the pro-war camp?
    Ha!
    Heres a media report
    "The U.S. military has said the car Sgrena was riding in was speeding, and Americans used hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and warning shots to get it to stop at the roadblock.

    But in an interview with Italian La 7 TV, Sgrena said, "There was no bright light, no signal." She also said the car was traveling at "regular speed."
    "
    How is that substantiated by the italian account?

    And then theres this
    "Italian military officials said two other agents were wounded, but U.S. officials said it was only one."

    Furthermore from the guardian website
    "The US Army claimed the Italians' vehicle had been seen as a threat because it was travelling at speed and failed to stop at the checkpoint despite warning shots being fired by the soldiers. A State Department official in Washington said the Italians had failed to inform the military of Sgrena's release. "
    versus this.
    "Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers' first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.
    "
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    What details would you like?
    The actual story that was reported and what condition the insurgent was in.

    What makes me a Neo-Con?
    I don't think you're a Christian fundamentalist but you are extremely right wing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    No

    Indeed they do. But often the self-interest of one country leads to benefits for other countires. In this case, America: gets influence in middle east, can strive to hunt out terrorists etc whilst Iraq: gets democracy.
    To hunt the terrorists they created? What terrorist groups are you talking about?

    I'm not saying that this was the only factor, but I don't believe that the invasion was influenced solely by oil. There are tens, possibly hundreds of factors that led to the war.
    They are?

    I never said that. What I did say was that we need an army.
    Ok. but you implied it.

    Simply because soldiers are humans put in very stressful situations. If one of them cracks up or panics and makes a mistake, that isn't there fault, it's the fault of those who were supposed to be looking after them.
    Erm, ok. I can't be bothered repeating myself.

    Would you not agree that humans have the right to make mistakes?
    They have the responsibility when in a job such as theirs. It depends on what mistakes. It seems the US amry makes a lot of mistakes doesnt it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    You deny ever having had a bias towards the pro-war camp?
    Ha!
    I thought the bias was toward the US military?

    Heres a media report
    "The U.S. military has said the car Sgrena was riding in was speeding, and Americans used hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and warning shots to get it to stop at the roadblock.

    But in an interview with Italian La 7 TV, Sgrena said, "There was no bright light, no signal." She also said the car was traveling at "regular speed."
    "
    How is that substantiated by the italian account?
    Its not, I referred to 'facts' such as the time and place of the event, the persons present, the outcome of the action. Based on an explanation provided by the US military, I made an assessment of what would be considered a security threat.

    And then theres this
    "Italian military officials said two other agents were wounded, but U.S. officials said it was only one."

    Furthermore from the guardian website
    "The US Army claimed the Italians' vehicle had been seen as a threat because it was travelling at speed and failed to stop at the checkpoint despite warning shots being fired by the soldiers. A State Department official in Washington said the Italians had failed to inform the military of Sgrena's release. "
    versus this.
    "Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers' first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.
    "
    What should that tell me?

    So "There was no bright light, no signal." but the hostage says that "The Americans shone a flashlight at the car"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you're a Christian fundamentalist but you are extremely right wing.
    And that makes me a Neo-Con? Im not exactly sure what religion has to do with it either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    You deny ever having had a bias towards the pro-war camp?
    Ha!
    Heres a media report
    "The U.S. military has said the car Sgrena was riding in was speeding, and Americans used hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and warning shots to get it to stop at the roadblock.

    But in an interview with Italian La 7 TV, Sgrena said, "There was no bright light, no signal." She also said the car was traveling at "regular speed."
    "
    How is that substantiated by the italian account?

    And then theres this
    "Italian military officials said two other agents were wounded, but U.S. officials said it was only one."

    Furthermore from the guardian website
    "The US Army claimed the Italians' vehicle had been seen as a threat because it was travelling at speed and failed to stop at the checkpoint despite warning shots being fired by the soldiers. A State Department official in Washington said the Italians had failed to inform the military of Sgrena's release. "
    versus this.
    "Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers' first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.
    "
    I would agree it seems silly for people to defending such bold view about what happened when the facts are far from determined. I personally am withholding judgement untill what happened is known better.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowkin)
    To hunt the terrorists they created? What terrorist groups are you talking about?
    You know those two buildings? The ones they knocked down?

    They are?
    Well we'll never know them all, but the idea of a "base" in the middle east similar to those in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, the fact that Bush doesn't like Saddam Hussein, the oil, the possibility of making an example of a country to discourage other rougue nations plus many more

    Erm, ok. I can't be bothered repeating myself.
    I've had to repeat myself often enough. You just need to put yourself in the shoes of the soldiers.

    They have the responsibility when in a job such as theirs. It depends on what mistakes.
    Indeed, but as I've said it's difficult to make reasoned decisions in the heat of the moment. Neither you nor I will probably ever experience such a moment.
    It seems the US amry makes a lot of mistakes doesnt it?
    Probably no more than most other armies have ever done, but this war is much better documented and monitored by the media than any war before it.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    I thought the bias was toward the US military?


    Its not, I referred to 'facts' such as the time and place of the event, the persons present, the outcome of the action. Based on an explanation provided by the US military, I made an assessment of what would be considered a security threat.


    What should that tell me?
    "Based on an explanation provided by the US military, I made an assessment of what would be considered a security threat."
    You said the italian account substantiated what the US said. the italians say they had passed checkpoints already weren't driving fast when all of a sudden a light shone on them and a hail of bullets was let loose.
    You are clearly believing what you want to believe, and that is the infallibility of the US military, and that they wouldn't dream of lying to cover their asses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ``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.''

    "There was no bright light, no signal."

    "Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle."

    Some contradicting statements there.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I would agree it seems silly for people to defending such bold view about what happened when the facts are far from determined. I personally am withholding judgement untill what happened is known better.
    indeed, as i said myself on on of my first posts on the topic. Vienna of course just wades in making bold proclomations.
    Well for once Vienna you have nothing concrete to back yourself up with. You CAN'T source 101 websites to back up your side.
    And, salt in wound, half of my quotes were taken from the Foxnews website.
    If they don't immediately back you up, no one will.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ``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.''

    "There was no bright light, no signal."

    "Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle."

    Some contradicting statements there.
    Makes aure to get this bit right
    Contradicting STATEMENTS
    or
    Contradicting REPORTING
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    "Based on an explanation provided by the US military, I made an assessment of what would be considered a security threat."
    You said the italian account substantiated what the US said.
    No, I said that the italian account substantiated certain facts. There is also evident disagreement between accounts.

    the italians say they had passed checkpoints already weren't driving fast when all of a sudden a light shone on them and a hail of bullets was let loose.
    If the US soldiers believe them to be a security threat then that would be plausible.

    You are clearly believing what you want to believe, and that is the infallibility of the US military, and that they wouldn't dream of lying to cover their asses.
    What am I believing?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ``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.''

    "There was no bright light, no signal."

    "Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle."

    Some contradicting statements there.
    Why would anyone shoot at a car that had passed the checkpoint?

    The US soldiers were not at any risk so why would they shoot to kill?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    indeed, as i said myself on on of my first posts on the topic. Vienna of course just wades in making bold proclomations.
    Well for once Vienna you have nothing concrete to back yourself up with. You CAN'T source 101 websites to back up your side.
    And, salt in wound, half of my quotes were taken from the Foxnews website.
    If they don't immediately back you up, no one will.
    yes we all know what happens when you bulid your house on sand
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Why would anyone shoot at a car that had passed the checkpoint?

    The US soldiers were not at any risk so why would they shoot to kill?
    How did they know they werent at any risk? Couldnt it have easily been a car bomb coming towards them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    indeed, as i said myself on on of my first posts on the topic. Vienna of course just wades in making bold proclomations.
    Well for once Vienna you have nothing concrete to back yourself up with. You CAN'T source 101 websites to back up your side.
    And, salt in wound, half of my quotes were taken from the Foxnews website.
    If they don't immediately back you up, no one will.
    What have I said?

    - That the US had no knowledge of this evacuation plan.
    "Finally, a State Department official in Washington said the Italians did not tell either the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad or U.S. military commanders about Sgrena's release, even though a U.S. hostage coordinator had been working closely with them on the case"

    - That the US claims they did not stop at a checkpoint
    "a statement from the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad said troops fired at a speeding car that "refused to stop at a checkpoint.The statement said soldiers with the 3rd Infantry "killed one civilian and wounded two others when their vehicle traveling at high speeds refused to stop at a check point here today. About 9:00 pm, a patrol in western Baghdad observed the vehicle speeding towards their checkpoint and attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots in front of the car. When the driver didn't stop, the soldiers shot into the engine block, which stopped the vehicle, killing one and wounding two others."

    - That the US, as a result, would have considered them a security threat.

    What do you disagree with?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH)
    You know those two buildings? The ones they knocked down?
    you have to be kidding me. Are you serious? So they invade Iraq for that. oooooook then. You do realise Hussein had no links to Al Qaeda. Or do you have conspiracy theory you wish to share?


    Well we'll never know them all, but the idea of a "base" in the middle east similar to those in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, the fact that Bush doesn't like Saddam Hussein, the oil, the possibility of making an example of a country to discourage other rougue nations plus many more
    I think it proves one point to 'rogue nations' (that is the worst term EVER) get nuclear weapons, and fast.


    I've had to repeat myself often enough. You just need to put yourself in the shoes of the soldiers.
    no thanks.


    Indeed, but as I've said it's difficult to make reasoned decisions in the heat of the moment. Neither you nor I will probably ever experience such a moment.
    Right.

    Probably no more than most other armies have ever done, but this war is much better documented and monitored by the media than any war before it.
    yes. This raises a new point, how many other atrocities has the US committed then? Only recently has it been realised they were torturing prisoners in Afghanistan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Makes aure to get this bit right
    Contradicting STATEMENTS
    or
    Contradicting REPORTING
    Possibly both.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    How did they know they werent at any risk? Couldnt it have easily been a car bomb coming towards them?
    I was under the impression they shot at a retreating car - the agent acted as a human shield for the lady and he was shot in the back.

    Same thing happened in NI once (at least once as far as I know) and the soldier's defence was that he thought they were a risk to his life. He shot and killed after the car had passed and was sentenced to imprisonment.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by yawn)
    Why would anyone shoot at a car that had passed the checkpoint?

    The US soldiers were not at any risk so why would they shoot to kill?
    Well thats something yet to be worked out - did they really pass checkpoints prior to this one. When we get more details about precise locations, i figure the truth will come out. Now it might be that the italian lady is pissed off as hell to have escaped Iraqis, and then got plugged by some Yank sollies, and is trying to make more of it than there is.
    But either way, we just have to wait a few weeks for all the facts to come out.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.