When "oops" just doesn't cut it.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Name

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]

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.

[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?