When "oops" just doesn't cut it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7089948/

Whoa boy, someone's going to get it BIG for this one. Major foul up here. And that poor, poor journalist! With all the hell she's already had to endure, now this?

[lizziebith]

Man...we've got some serious 'splainin' to do... :(

[Prudence]

Oh geeze. What's worse than being kidnapped by terrorists? Being shot at by the "good guys" during your escape.

[BarTopDancer]

Sigh. I have a feeling this will try and be pinned on the driver. They say he was going too fast and failed to slow for the checkpoint. My friend [who is over there] said "her driver was stupid".

The guy who died died protecting the freed hostage. He threw himself over her.

Sigh.

[Gemini Cricket]

Wow, that's really terrible. Poor lady. :(

[Kevy Baby]

Man...we've got some serious 'splainin' to do... :(The only one with something to explain is the driver of the car!

[Jazzman]

Yes, yes, someone should get it big for this one. I mean, after all, what kind of an incompetent droob would fire on an unidentified, rapidly incoming vehicle that is barreling toward your checkpoint while ignoring warnings, flashing lights and warning shots, all in a country where a great many of your comrade's deaths have been the result of... car bombings! The obviously trigger-happy Yankee gunslingers should all be slapped in the face and court martialled for not standing idly by, eating cupcakes, and allowing the suspicious vehicle to ram them, as any well trained, non-evil, non-American soldier would do; am I not right? The thought of these war mongers raising their murderous weapons in acts of... ahem, "self defense," must be stopped immediately.







I do apologize for the snarkiness, but this irritates the hell out of me. The immediate and grossly reactionary urge to blindly point fingers at the U.S. servicemen who had no info on the car and tried everything they could do before finally resorting to desperate self-preservation measures is ludicrous. I can imagine the Propaganda Gnomes’ little palms getting all sweaty in anticipation of twisting this into even more "Bush is evil and this is why!" rhetoric. As Cartman says, "Lame...."

[wendybeth]

The driver of the car and the journalist are disputing the soldier's accounts, but I am very sceptical of their versions of what happened. Why would the soldiers shoot at them? I think they were caught up in the moment in trying to escape and didn't realise how they might appear to the soldiers at the checkpoint. Why on earth weren't the Americans apprised of what was happening- that this rescue operation was underway? I am very glad for her sake that she was rescued, but she was foolish to be there in the first place.

[Name]

Story on hostages account of incident (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050307/ap_on_re_eu/italy_iraq_hostage)

From article:

Without backing up the claim, Sgrena said she believed it was possible she was targeted because the United States objected to methods used to secure her release.


"The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known," the 56-year-old journalist told Sky TG24 television by telephone, her voice hoarse and shaky. "The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostage, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target."

:rolleyes:

Please lady, whatever.

[alphabassettgrrl]

And here I thought we didn't want to negotiate because that'd only encourage them... No, of course it stands to reason that we'd like more innocents to die. Sure.

Whatever. I mean, our fair journalist is entitled to her own opinion, but I do think she's more than a little "off" in her assessment. Yes, the soldiers would fire on a speeding car coming to the checkpoint, and yes, the driver probably didn't think how that would be interpreted. It really is a mess-up that really isn't anybody in particular's fault. Bad situation all 'round.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Likewise, I'm thinking "fog of war" here. Mistakes are going to be made. I'm not comfortable with what occured but then again, I'm not comfortable with a lot that has occurred. We can't expect everyone to do their job perfectly and it's easy to assign blame after the fact, hindsite being 20/20 and all. Such a shame.

[wendybeth]

I agree, it is a shame. The woman is from a radical publication, and went into Iraq looking for a story. She then became the story, and came very close to dying a horrible death. It sounds like lots of money that will now be used to inflict more suffering and havoc was paid out, and a man has died. The more I read on this, the angrier I am at her. She's damned lucky to be alive.

[Morrigoon]

Hate to admit it, but I agree with our country's policy of not paying ransoms, etc, for hostages. It DOES encourage more hostage taking. Notice how many hostages have been from OTHER countries. Doesn't take that long to figure us out, eh? I mean, it would totally suck if you WERE the hostage not being negotiated for, but on the other hand, how many other people's lives were saved, who will never realize that they were saved, by not being taken hostages for that reason.

[wendybeth]

I felt so badly for the CARE director who was kidnapped and murdered. I don't feel the same way for this person. She went there with an agenda, got herself into trouble, and then had the good fortune to be rescued. I feel badly for the man who sacrificed his life for her, and for his family. The abductors have scored a double coup- they got a bunch of money, and the US got another political black eye. I truly feel that she is more responsible for this man's death than anyone else.

[lizziebith]

Well, first I'd like to clarify my "need more 'splainin'" remark: it was obvious that this was going to become more than a tragedy: it would become a diplomatic hot potata. Second, I'd just like to say one word: Rashomon. None of us were there, and even the participants can't be blamed for having different interpretations of the event. Finally, yeah, my personal ideology tends to filter my assessment of these kinds of things, and there have been enough reports of our own guys being killed by friendly fire to think that maybe someone's finger went a little trigger-happy out there. My opinion is exactly (no more and no less) as "knee-jerk" as the opposition's is in blindly defending U.S. soldiers. After all, NONE of knows all the facts yet. Just wanted to acknowledge that.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Lots of good points there, WB. I don't think anyone deserves to go through what she went through. That doesn't mean she didn't make unwise choices that put her in danger. I think there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Jazzman]

My sympathies rest with the family of the man who sacrificed his life for the reporter’s agenda, as well as with the soldiers involved in the shooting. I'm sure that it must have felt like the world fell onto their shoulders once they discovered what had happened, and I can only imagine the added burden which something such as this must bring to them. As if living and working in a foreign war zone wouldn't be bad enough already....

[scaeagles]

Apparently, the Italians didn't even tell US authorities that they had arranged for her to be released.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050307-120131-5769r.htm

How then could the US forces NOT shoot at the car speeding toward the checkpoint (assuming that it was)?

[wendybeth]

Well, first I'd like to clarify my "need more 'splainin'" remark: it was obvious that this was going to become more than a tragedy: it would become a diplomatic hot potata. Second, I'd just like to say one word: Rashomon. None of us were there, and even the participants can't be blamed for having different interpretations of the event. Finally, yeah, my personal ideology tends to filter my assessment of these kinds of things, and there have been enough reports of our own guys being killed by friendly fire to think that maybe someone's finger went a little trigger-happy out there. My opinion is exactly (no more and no less) as "knee-jerk" as the opposition's is in blindly defending U.S. soldiers. After all, NONE of knows all the facts yet. Just wanted to acknowledge that.

My first thoughts about this were the same as the OP's - I felt very badly for the journalist. As more information comes out, I find my sympathies shifting a bit. You're absolutely right, Lizzibith- none of us were there and the facts have yet to be determined. Still, I have a feeling that this may end up being a worse problem for the Italian goverment than ours.

[BarTopDancer]

Sigh. I have a feeling this will try and be pinned on the driver. They say he was going too fast and failed to slow for the checkpoint. My friend [who is over there] said "her driver was stupid".

The guy who died died protecting the freed hostage. He threw himself over her.

Sigh.

I'd like to change my stance. I think the driver was at fault, at the minimum the majority of the *blame* lays with him. It doesn't matter how she was released, he was barrling at a checkpoint where it has been pretty apparent that if you don't stop you will be shot at.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I've changed my opinion on this story more than once. I'm not sure we have enough information yet to really determine what went wrong.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, all this 'barrelling towards the checkpoint' is in dispute by many of the parties involved, as is the U.S. claim of hand signs and flashing lights. Also in dispute is the U.S. being informed of this car headed towards the airport with the rescued journalist. All of it is in dispute; and why on earth would I take the Pentagon's word for anything that is disputed? Not to say that the Pentagon is lying, but why would I assume they are the ones telling the truth when anyone else on earth claims they are not?

I can just imagine how many trigger-happy car shootings have taken place with less famous vehicle occupants where we never even hear of any dispute. I am not about to automatically discount the one incident high profile enough for the dispute of the military version of events to even become public.

There may never be enough information to determine what exactly happened. The journo claims she was warned by her captors that the U.S. would try to assassinate her. She said she laughed that off .... until the U.S. opened fire on her vehicle and tried to kill her. Are assassination plans by the U.S. military a little too black-helicopter for you? If so, I think you're being a bit naive about what goes on in war.

[€uroMeinke]

I've changed my opinion on this story more than once. I'm not sure we have enough information yet to really determine what went wrong.

Heh, starting with why we are there in the first place...

[wendybeth]

Here's an account from someone who is familiar with the area in which this took place. I have no idea of the politics of this person, as I don't normally read his stuff, but it's a good article: Friendly fire incident (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/)

[Jazzman]

Not to say that the Pentagon is lying, but why would I assume they are the ones telling the truth when anyone else on earth claims they are not?
No offense, and I applaud your own premium snarkiness, but that anyone out there is making claims that the Pentagon is lying is kind of a weak point. I could easily find just as many people who claim that their fish told them that the Lobster Gods are coming back in a comet to take everyone home. Point being, the claim isn’t that solid, what with the lack of any actual evidence. I would argue, however, that common sense would tell you that battle weary soldiers in the field (who are everyday folks like you and I and everyone else who posts here) would be a little skeptical of a suspicious car rapidly approaching their position, especially when most of the guys over there have lost friends in attacks that began under very similar circumstances.

I can just imagine how many trigger-happy car shootings have taken place with less famous vehicle occupants where we never even hear of any dispute. I am not about to automatically discount the one incident high profile enough for the dispute of the military version of events to even become public.
Do you have any evidence to support such a thinly veiled accusation? Or is the implication that there have been covered-up car snipings just an unfounded opinion?

There may never be enough information to determine what exactly happened. The journo claims she was warned by her captors that the U.S. would try to assassinate her. She said she laughed that off .... until the U.S. opened fire on her vehicle and tried to kill her.
Which is a wild accusation. All reports I have read state that the soldiers fired at the engine block, which is an obvious attempt to disable the car. If assassination were the goal, I have no doubt that everyone in the car would be dead, and not much of the car would be left.

Are assassination plans by the U.S. military a little too black-helicopter for you? If so, I think you're being a bit naive about what goes on in war.
I have to ask, after reading this, if you have actual, personal military ops experience. Because this statement is pretty loaded. It is just as easy to say that anyone who actually believes in black helicopter assassinations is being more than a bit paranoid, and that seems to make more sense than what you said.



And again, I really mean no offense. I’m not trying to be adversarial here, and I sincerely respect your opinions. I just can’t help but object to a lot of the things you posted here and also can’t help but suspect that your own stated opinions about the current administration and the situation in Iraq may be coloring your views here, in this instance.

[Scrooge McSam]

<snip>anyone out there is making claims that the Pentagon is lying is kind of a weak point.

Only to those who have chosen to accept at face value anything they're told by this administration.

I could easily find just as many people who claim that their fish told them that the Lobster Gods are coming back in a comet to take everyone home.

I hate to call anything an outright lie, but that comes as close as anything I've ever read. Can any poster who makes such a ridiculous claim be taken seriously?

Point being, the claim isn’t that solid, what with the lack of any actual evidence.

I can't help but wonder just what you would call "actual evidence". How much evidence do you need to convince you of the fact that this administration has not been truthful with you. Did you miss our little performance in front of the U.N.? Did you miss Ms. Rice's lying before Congress? If congressional testimonies and signed documents do not constitute "actual evidence", I don't know what does.

I would argue, however, that common sense would tell you that battle weary soldiers in the field (who are everyday folks like you and I and everyone else who posts here) would be a little skeptical of a suspicious car rapidly approaching their position, especially when most of the guys over there have lost friends in attacks that began under very similar circumstances.

You'll find no argument from me on this point.

...and also can’t help but suspect that your own stated opinions about the current administration and the situation in Iraq may be coloring your views here, in this instance.

As are yours.

[Name]

Umm.......Wow..........To all the "black helicopter" theories, and other theories about assasination attempts on this lady. I had many an opportunity to get to know many marines, most very similar to the ones that are over there now, black ops guys they are not, but just normal(loose definition) guys just wanting to do their job well and stay alive. I am sorry, but I give our military guys the benefit of the doubt when it comes to self preservation in an area like that where car bombings are a norm, and could happen at any time. If so, I think you're being a bit naive about what goes on in war.
sorry, not gonna let this comment slide, I do know what goes on during war, and in my opinion, if we were going to assasinate someone, we have by far better methods then what you alleged. After all, it is said all's fair in love and war, but this was, I believe, just a mistake. Marines trigger happy, no, wouldn't be possible :rolleyes: and in my opinion, rightly so at times, slow reactions can and have killed many people.

/jumps off soapbox

[SacTown Chronic]

sorry, not gonna let this comment slide, I do know what goes on during war, and in my opinion, if we were going to assasinate someone, we have by far better methods then what you alleged.

While I may have no clue as to whether this was an assasination attempt or an accident caused by understandable skittishness, I do know that the woman was headed out of the country and any assasination attempt would come with limited, time-is-of-the-essence, options. So a sloppy whacking would be understandable under the circumstances.

Though I agree with your assesment, Name, that most guys over there are good people who just want to do their jobs well and stay alive, I could also say the same about the guards at Abu Graihb. Orders is orders, as you well know.

[SacTown Chronic]

I just can’t help but object to a lot of the things you posted here and also can’t help but suspect that your own stated opinions about the current administration and the situation in Iraq may be coloring your views here, in this instance.

Sadly, it would be equally true to say that most stated opinions about the current administration, and the situation in Iraq, are formed based on the previous actions of this administration. That is to say, if you are going to be a lying weasel then you better be prepared to be called a lying weasel. You simply cannot live an immoral life filled with secrets, lies and misinformation and then become indignant when you tell the truth and people don't believe you.

[innerSpaceman]

Firing at the engine block? Is that how the Italian special agent was killed? Was he hiding under the hood? Or was he throwing himself over the person he was pledged to protect and took the fatal bullet that way? Hmmm, makes me kinda wonder whether the target was indeed the engine block.

Furthermore, my opinions about lies told by the military are not colored by my views of this particular administration. I have lived long enough to have experienced plenty of lies by the U.S. military for the past 45 years, tons of lies by our government over that same period, and a crapload of lies by plenty of other countries' governments and military organizations. I don't trust the word of any of them. Why should I?

[Jazzman]

My point being in all of this that too many people are turning this situation into a matter regarding the administration and Bush and so on and so on, which is completely inappropriate. George Bush was not there at the checkpoint giving orders, nor was anyone else from the Pentagon. This incident probably took all of three minutes to play out, and in that amount of time decisions came down to on-the-spot acts of judgment on the part of soldiers who are everyday people like any of us here. To turn this incident into a debate about the Bush administration is completely missing the point because in this instance the Bush administration had no impact on what happened there.

As far as firing into the engine block, I'm not sure if you've ever fired a gun yourself, but they don't magically aim themselves. And trying to hit a certain spot on a speeding car, driving (I would bet erratically) quickly toward you, would be extremely difficult. I am sure that several bullets would have overshot and entered into the passenger compartment, striking the occupants. There is also a very plausible chance that bullets striking the engine block would have ricocheted into the passenger compartment as well. To say that they weren't intending to hit the block simply because someone inside was hit is a gross assumption and completely ignores physics, and physics don't lie and are always bipartisan.

This whole business about calling it an assassination is simply ludicrous. To imply that these soldiers, who are simply trying to do their job and get home, would commit such an evil act is shameful. Maybe there are people in the Pentagon or the White House who would, but to be putting that accusation on the common men and women on the ground is just sad.



And sorry Sac, but nothing you said really compels me to reply. If you want to start a “Bush is evil” debate, start that thread. This isn’t about Bush. It’s about a handful of American GIs in Iraq and an Italian reporter. If you would like to discuss them, please do. Otherwise... sorry.
Oh, but I will say that the Lobster joke was intended to be just that. I’m sorry I didn’t plaster “Joke! Not intended to be taken literally!” before it. If you would like me to, I can go back and edit that in there for you. :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, but I will say that the Lobster joke was intended to be just that. I’m sorry I didn’t plaster “Joke! Not intended to be taken literally!” before it. If you would like me to, I can go back and edit that in there for you. :)It may have been joke, but it's interesting that you compare the statement, "The Pentagon may be lying," to a complete fabrication. Are you denying that the Pentagon has ever lied? I'm not saying that they are or aren't in this case, however, there are no facts as of the moment to support either side, so why should we just assume that the Pentagon's version of the "facts" are truthful? Lord knows they've got quite the track record of not being truthful when it suits them.

[innerSpaceman]

And laws of physics aside, Jazzman, I find it physically suspicious that the Italian agent who, by all eyewitness reports, threw his body over the journalist was "accidentally" shot while the soldiers aimed for the engine block. It certainly is a possibility that their aim was off and coincidentally went straight for the person purportedly targeted for assassination. If that's the case, it's a tough break for the U.S. I don't think most Italians are taking it as a coincidence, and I don't see any reason to consider it that way either. If that's the cry-wolf scenario that a lying military machine has gotten itself into, then it has to live with the consequences of not being believed when circumstances are so suspicious.

And I appreciate that you'd like to characterize these marines as just some goofball good guys who made a tragic error in the heat of combat duty, but I just don't buy it. History as recent as Abu-Graib puts the lie to the simple assumption that all U.S. soliders are good guys who do no purposeful evil. That's crap. No one is immune from purposeful evil in war. I'd agree that most soldiers don't succumb to that. But lots of them on every side of every conflict surely do. So, no, I cannot simply assume that these marines weren't thwarted only by a human shield from hitting their intended and ordered target.

As for which assumption to make in this case ... do you really think a hostage rescue mission would attempt to barrel through a U.S. military checkpoint? Doesn't that claim stretch credulity a little much? Where's the motive?

As far-fetched as the U.S. motive may seem, it's there. Where's the Italian motive for risking all by barreling through a military checkpoint?

[lizziebith]

As for which assumption to make in this case ... do you really think a hostage rescue mission would attempt to barrel through a U.S. military checkpoint? Doesn't that claim stretch credulity a little much? Where's the motive?

As far-fetched as the U.S. motive may seem, it's there. Where's the Itooalian motive for risking all by barreling through a military checkpoint?

This has been the issue that's bothered me the most: we ALL agree that barreling toward a U.S. checkpoint in wartime is beyond foolish. So, either they weren't speeding (as they claim) or they were, which makes NO SENSE. Were they being chased? It just doesn't read right to me. Or smell right, either.

[Name]

And I fail to see why we would risk assasinating a dumb biatch left wing italian reporter. She has little weight that would turn the tide of the "war". Especially when failure would have the repricussions that we are seeing now. Seems it would be more convienient and easier to make sure that her plane had "engine trouble" or was targeted by an "insurgent with a modified RPG" on the way out of the country. Or better yet, why not hit the car with an RPG before it made it close to the checkpoint, something more we could blame on insurgents. No it seems to me more like some overzealous marines(not hard to come by) that mistook the actions(whatever they were) of the car as hostile.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The motive would be to say, "See, you shouldn't go behind our backs and negotiate. By not working with us, you run the risk of confusing us and getting shot in the confusion."

[wendybeth]

This has been the issue that's bothered me the most: we ALL agree that barreling toward a U.S. checkpoint in wartime is beyond foolish. So, either they weren't speeding (as they claim) or they were, which makes NO SENSE. Were they being chased? It just doesn't read right to me. Or smell right, either.

The link I posted explains that the road they were on is considered the most dangerous road in the world. Were I traveling such a road, I'd be going damned fast. It doesn't make sense to me that they were out for a nice, leisurely drive in the Iraqi countryside post-release. I don't have a lot of faith in anything the defense department puts out, but neither do I have any any reason to believe this person, whose very presence in such a dangerous place cost one man his life, and whose release has funded who knows how many more violent acts.

[BarTopDancer]

More random thoughts..

I find it very hard to believe that a gaggle of Marines assigned to a check-point would be put incharge of an assination. Trigger happy? Perhaps. Mistake? Perhaps. Plot? Perhaps. Will we ever know the 'real story'? Doubtful.

Ya. They were traveling the most dangerous road in Iraq. So do other vehicles who stop at the checkpoint. I'm going out on a limb here that it's common knowledge if you don't stop at a checkpoint or slow down by a certain point your vehicle will be shot at.

Is it possible the bullet bounced off something and hit the guy? Is it possible that the car hit a bump at the same moment the shot was fired and it hit the guy? It's so easy to blame either side when we don't know the full story. And it's doubtful we ever will. All reports on this will either be biased towards the woman or biased towards us.

Seems it would be more convienient and easier to make sure that her plane had "engine trouble" or was targeted by an "insurgent with a modified RPG" on the way out of the country. Or better yet, why not hit the car with an RPG before it made it close to the checkpoint, something more we could blame on insurgents.

If this was some sort of 'black-ops' I think they would be a tad more creative then to do an assination attempt this way. And by this way I mean the shooting at the checkpoint.

[Scrooge McSam]

My point being in all of this that too many people are turning this situation into a matter regarding the administration and Bush and so on and so on, which is completely inappropriate. George Bush was not there at the checkpoint giving orders, nor was anyone else from the Pentagon. This incident probably took all of three minutes to play out, and in that amount of time decisions came down to on-the-spot acts of judgment on the part of soldiers who are everyday people like any of us here. To turn this incident into a debate about the Bush administration is completely missing the point because in this instance the Bush administration had no impact on what happened there.

There is one man responsible for our presence in Iraq, and it isn't Osama Bin Laden, or even Saddam Hussein. Just as he would certainly accept any and all credit for success in Iraq, Mr. Bush must also bear all criticism if it devolves into a ****storm.

That being said...

This whole business about calling it an assassination is simply ludicrous.

I'm with you here. I wouldn't go as far as "ludicrous", but that's a minor quibble.

To imply that these soldiers, who are simply trying to do their job and get home, would commit such an evil act is shameful. Maybe there are people in the Pentagon or the White House who would, but to be putting that accusation on the common men and women on the ground is just sad.

I appreciate your need to defend the warfighter, but I think you ignore some major proven history points here. I'm not going into all the atrocities, but you've seen them.

I don't think it's an assassination, either. It's too sloppy. But if verifiable evidence comes back to me that it was, I would have no problem believing that my government has lied to me again. I fear some here would so long as this president is in the white house, no matter the proof.

Oh, but I will say that the Lobster joke was intended to be just that. I’m sorry I didn’t plaster “Joke! Not intended to be taken literally!” before it. If you would like me to, I can go back and edit that in there for you. :)

I gotta stop taking things so literally. See, I thought it was an attempt to make a point without being bogged down with facts, served with a side order of dismissiveness.

:cheers: My bad.

[Jazzman]

It may have been joke, but it's interesting that you compare the statement, "The Pentagon may be lying," to a complete fabrication. Are you denying that the Pentagon has ever lied? I'm not saying that they are or aren't in this case, however, there are no facts as of the moment to support either side, so why should we just assume that the Pentagon's version of the "facts" are truthful? Lord knows they've got quite the track record of not being truthful when it suits them.

Alright, so I guess the use of analogies is taboo here, so I'll explain again. iSm asked why he "should assume they are the ones telling the truth when anyone else on earth claims they are not?" As if all of those people out there doubting them have some authority. My statement, about the Lobster God, which you guys took way too seriously, was meant to show that you can find nearly any group of people holding nearly any opinions. That doesn't make whatever their opinion is the truth, or a fact. Sure, you may not find any lobster worshipers, but you may, and that wouldn't make lobsters gods. Just like it doesn't matter how many people out there believe that the Pentagon tells lies. They don't make that claim true either.

Now, does that clear that up enough for everyone?

[Jazzman]

And laws of physics aside, Jazzman, I find it physically suspicious that the Italian agent who, by all eyewitness reports, threw his body over the journalist was "accidentally" shot while the soldiers aimed for the engine block. It certainly is a possibility that their aim was off and coincidentally went straight for the person purportedly targeted for assassination. If that's the case, it's a tough break for the U.S. I don't think most Italians are taking it as a coincidence, and I don't see any reason to consider it that way either.
I’ll cede that point to you. If someone sees a suspicious coincidence there, I won’t argue with anyone asking that question. However, I don’t see anyone asking any question; I see accusations and judgments. It’s cool to say, “Hmmm, is this possible?” and explore that. But this habit of immediately saying, “Well, this must be what happened because it shows that the U.S. is evil!” is just discriminatory and a bit rash. Not to mention how unfair it is to the service men and women over there.

And I appreciate that you'd like to characterize these marines as just some goofball good guys who made a tragic error in the heat of combat duty, but I just don't buy it. History as recent as Abu-Graib puts the lie to the simple assumption that all U.S. soliders are good guys who do no purposeful evil. That's crap. No one is immune from purposeful evil in war. I'd agree that most soldiers don't succumb to that. But lots of them on every side of every conflict surely do. So, no, I cannot simply assume that these marines weren't thwarted only by a human shield from hitting their intended and ordered target.
Citing one isolated example of a handful of soldiers who went too far and broke civil and military laws (And were caught and dealt with by the military instead of being covered up, as they could have.) hardly puts any lie to anything. A dozen or so misfits hardly characterize the tens of thousands of military men and women in our armed forces. The great majority of service personnel are everyday men and women who are good people, and who are doing their jobs and trying to make a difference. Dismissing them and their intentions simply because a very small rogue group committed a crime is the same false logic that leads to things like racism and prejudice. It’s a generalization, and a bad one at that.

As far-fetched as the U.S. motive may seem, it's there. Where's the Italian motive for risking all by barreling through a military checkpoint?
To you perhaps, but I fail to see any motive here. Despite GD’s “See what ya get!” assertion, I don’t see any possible positive outcome for the U.S. in this at all. With all of the negative press floating around the world regarding Iraq it would have been in our best interest to make sure that nothing at all happened to them on their way out, lest the international community have something more to scream about; as they now do. I really see this all as one big, tragic chain of events that started out with an ill-conceived rescue plan that didn’t involve informing the military of what was going to happen. Had that one simple step been taken I doubt that anyone would have died.

[sleepyjeff]

As for which assumption to make in this case ... do you really think a hostage rescue mission would attempt to barrel through a U.S. military checkpoint? Doesn't that claim stretch credulity a little much?


Where's the motive?



Simple.......Panic. People tend to do very stupid and dare I say "incredulous" things when under its influence.

[Nephythys]

I'm just in awe of this woman's trumped up notions of self importance to think that we would want her dead. It's ego and arrogance to the extreme. She is not important enough for someone to send these guys in to kill her.

Plots aside- that's just stupid.

[Ghoulish Delight]

. Just like it doesn't matter how many people out there believe that the Pentagon tells lies. They don't make that claim true either.Wow, so you really don't believe the Pentagon ever lies to the public?

[SacTown Chronic]

I'm just in awe of this woman's trumped up notions of self importance to think that we would want her dead. It's ego and arrogance to the extreme. She is not important enough for someone to send these guys in to kill her.
You may be right. But if someone dove across my lap and took a bullet for me, I'd be spooked to the point of paranoia. A situation like that would cause just about anybody to question the offical version of events, no matter their perceived level of importance.


For the record, btw, I have no clue as to which way this situation falls regarding assasination/accident. Like everything else, I'm willing to look at it from all sides. Those of you, having no more information than the rest of us, who flatly declare it an accident scare me. Faithfully believing everything someone tells you because you agree with their ideology is never a good idea.

[MickeyLumbo]

Wow, that's really terrible. Poor lady. :(

poor soldier. in trouble for doing his job.

[scaeagles]

We live in a bit of a different media era than 50 years ago. We have instant news everywhere, and this can make a difference in one of two ways for each incident, and it is unfortunate that we can never know which effect it is having.

The first possibility is that something has come to light that would not have ever come to light and this means that the event has been exposed because of the instant media.

The second possibility is that this instant information leads to incredible amounts of theorizing and pontificating when the evidence is not as of yet all known. This can also have positive and negative effects - the positive being that a real investigation will most likely take place, but it also allows for the instant politicization of the news itself, and allows for incredible theories to be thrown about that are not substantiated, and because of the average short attention span and the tendency to move on to the next instant news bit, when the evidence is known most people don't really care about it anymore.

It provides an atmosphere of unproven hypotheses being the prevailing factors in making a judgement on the event.

[Name]

I think I will just rest my argument with my previous statements.....I would LOVE to hear what the reasoning for assasination of a dumb biatch extreme left wing italian reporter would be, but in my mind, make absolutely no logical sense to risk that type of operation on such a low value target. Nuff said, give me a bonifide reason to risk such an operation, and I may move off the accident idea, until then, well, I guess I am just going to have to be a scary guy. :p

[mousepod]

We live in a bit of a different media era than 50 years ago. We have instant news everywhere, and this can make a difference in one of two ways for each incident, and it is unfortunate that we can never know which effect it is having.

The first possibility is that something has come to light that would not have ever come to light and this means that the event has been exposed because of the instant media.

The second possibility is that this instant information leads to incredible amounts of theorizing and pontificating when the evidence is not as of yet all known. This can also have positive and negative effects - the positive being that a real investigation will most likely take place, but it also allows for the instant politicization of the news itself, and allows for incredible theories to be thrown about that are not substantiated, and because of the average short attention span and the tendency to move on to the next instant news bit, when the evidence is known most people don't really care about it anymore.

It provides an atmosphere of unproven hypotheses being the prevailing factors in making a judgement on the event.

Hear, hear!
Plus, if you throw the highly competetive 24-hour news channels and blogs into the mix, you have the distinct possibility of many people receiving their news in the form of an editorial.
I'm not posting my opinion on the story here, because frankly, I have no idea what the truth is. I've heard the escalating allegations. I've heard the spin. I'm not sure I've heard the truth. From either side.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Nuff said, give me a bonifide reason to risk such an operation, and I may move off the accident idea, until then, well, I guess I am just going to have to be a scary guy. :pLike I said, the reasoning would be a power play. The US didn't like that negotiating directly with the terrorists worked, so they wanted to make them pay for usurping US dominance in the region. "Work through us, or 'accidents' might happen."*



*Note: I'm not saying this is fact, but it wouldn't be beyond reason. I believe neither side at the moment, and doubt I ever will believe any 'official' version.

[scaeagles]

Like I said, the reasoning would be a power play. The US didn't like that negotiating directly with the terrorists worked,

It worked???? Yeah, the release of the journalist was secured, but dealing with terrorists never works because it means that they were successful in extorting money or whatever.

I would not be in the least bit surprised if other Italians are targeted now because they know the Italians will pay up.

[SacTown Chronic]

Yeah, Name, we all know that everything the government and military does always makes perfect sense.

[Jazzman]

Wow, so you really don't believe the Pentagon ever lies to the public?
Look man, you're far too intelligent to keep resorting to semantics, and I really don't know how many more times I can explain that comment without having to resort to picture drawing. So here is my last attempt.

I made no assertion as to whether or not the Pentagon does or does not tell lies to the public. I don't know either way, and I refuse to accept conspiracy theories or anecdotal evidence either way. I just don't know, and therefore don't lean either way.

My comment was meant to demonstrate that accepting something; an opinion, an argument, or whatever else, simply because there are some other people in the world who believe it is illogical. So there are lot's of people who believe that the Pentagon lies. So what. That doesn't make it true, it just means some people believe it. Making any argument with the statement that "There are lots of people out there who believe it, so it must be true," doesn't make sense, nor is it logical. That's my point.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My comment was meant to demonstrate that accepting something; an opinion, an argument, or whatever else, simply because there are some other people in the world who believe it is illogical. The point is, there were just as many people (if not more) coming in here and definitively saying that the Pentagon's story was true as were saying that Italy's story was true. NEITHER can be said definitively, especially when it's a FACT that the Pentagon has lied to the public throughout its history (I'm not just talking about this administration here. It's the military, by their very nature they lie).

[MickeyLumbo]

Yeah, Name, we all know that everything the government and military does always makes perfect sense.

Do we need to role play Seargent/Private again?

shoulders back, boy!