Italian Hostage

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

Don't be ridiculous.

"Hey Hank.....here comes that car with the Italian hostage that's just been released"
"I sure do hate Italians Bubba"
"Me too, let's light him up"

hehe, I think the suggestion was that the Italians clearly informed the US that they had just paid some rather nasty terrorists millions of dollars for letting their woman watch TV and talk about Roma football club while being sporting enough to not to chop her head off. Of course, all the yanks had to do was turn a blind eye to an "out of control" Sedan and everyone would have been a winner. As it is though, the American "imbeciles", who dont "care about human life", decided that theyd "target" a communist journalist who they didnt particuarly take a shine to. Of course, had they really wanted her dead, she would be dead, so this was obviously a faked accident whereby the American plotters decided to instead seriously jeopardise US-Italian relationships by shooting dead an Italian agent, and letting the target walk free to accuse the US of murder.

Whatsmore, the Italians werent bothered that if it became known that they had been paying ransoms, it would place other Italians in serious jeopardy and thus there can be no suggestion that they thought theyd do this job on the quiet and if it all went wrong, point the finger at the US and let a commy rag direct the worlds media.

Your sense of humour is difficult to understand.

Accusing me of calling American and British soldiers idiots....I never did anything of the sort. I merely referred to this incident.

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

The rules of engagement are quite simple: If the vehicle is deemed a security threat then weapons fire directed at the engine block is used until the car comes to a halt. The evidence thus far is consistent with this thesis.

I have read somewhere (I will try to check exactly where) that the actual rules of engagement are a military secret, since making them public would facilitate the work of the insurgents.

slightly embarassing - http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20050308&hn=17287

It is good that you admitted your mistake, there are people on this forum who wouldn't do so. (I am being genuine)

hehe, er no. I meant it was slightly embarassing for the Italian government that the ransom was not even taken by the terrorists.

Oh dear. Randdom really cocked that up.

I appreciate her thought, but really, Id have to be capable of making a mistake before admitting to one.

I appreciate her thought, but really, Id have to be capable of making a mistake before admitting to one.

sounds like youre saying those in the army (ie soldiers) have an "idiot mentality".

perhaps you'll clear it up for us...as to how idiot doesnt actually mean idiot.

It doesnt, however, mean that the US are targetting civilians on a whim.

have you ever seen the exams needed to get into the army..?
spot the odd one out
orange, apple, banana, grenade
lorry, bus, taxi, helicopter
etc

My impression is that it boils down to what has blighted the Iraq operation right from the first days after military victory- carelessness, insufficient planning, no idea where they are going

To be fair, the troops have not been the best-supported they could be. What has really blighted that after-war years has been the attitude of the troops. I used to think that the British troops were being nice and the US troops were being nasty to Iraqis. I still do think that the British troops have a more friendly attitude in general. However, both forces have contained people who think it's funny to abuse prisoners. To an extent, you can't tell who will do this until it happens. However, I think tighter tabs should have been kept on the troops to prevent these breaches of human rights. It is the abuse of prisoners, more than anything else, that has lost the occupiers the trust of the Iraqi people.