When "oops" just doesn't cut it.

[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]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

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.

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

. 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?

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

Originally Posted by Jazzman

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.

Originally Posted by Jazzman

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.

Originally Posted by Jazzman

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.

My bad.

[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]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by lizziebith

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.