Published on Sunday, March 6, 2005 by The Sunday Times/UK

Italy Grieves as Hostage Accuses US of Murder
by Richard Owen in Rome


THOUSANDS of Italians filed past the coffin of an intelligence agent killed by American troops in a bungled hostage rescue as the White House expressed regret yesterday over the “horrific accident”.

As crowds paid homage to the body lying in state at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, President Ciampi called on Washington to clarify what happened.

She described how Nicola Calipari, the intelligence agent, had shielded her as a US patrol fired on them and how he had died almost instantly.

The American command in Baghdad insists that it was not informed of the rescue operation and that the car carrying Signora Sgrena was travelling at high speed and had failed to stop at a checkpoint.

“This is a horrific accident, on which President Bush personally called Prime Minister Berlusconi to offer his condolences, as well as to make sure that there is a full investigation, so we’re able to understand the very facts that are now being discussed,” Dan Bartlett, the White House communications chief, said yesterday.

Gianfranco Fini, the Italian Foreign Minister, described the shooting as simply “a macabre mockery of fate”. Nevertheless, prosecutors in Rome opened a “manslaughter inquiry”.

Reports allege that Signor Calipari negotiated a ransom of between $6 million and $8 million (£3.1 million and £4.1 million). Asked whether a ransom was paid for Signora Sgrena, Giovanni Alemanno, the Agriculture Minister, said that it was very probable.

Signor Calipari, who was married with two children, will be given a state funeral today. A post-mortem examination indicated that he had been killed by a single bullet to the head.

However, Signora Sgrena, who was hit in the left shoulder, said that “300 to 400” bullets had been fired “without any justification” by a US patrol as the unmarked car approached Baghdad airport, where American and Italian intelligence officers were waiting for them.

In her newspaper, Il Manifesto, Signora Sgrena said that her Iraqi kidnappers had told her to “be careful because the Americans do not want you to go back”. At first she had dismissed this, but the warning “came back to me as we came under a hail of fire”. She said in a television interview: “Everyone knows the Americans are against negotiating with hostage-takers, so I cannot exclude the possibility that they targeted me.”

She said that she and her secret service escort were speaking on their mobile phones when the firing broke out. The driver shouted that they were Italian. “Nicola Calipari dived on top of me to protect me and immediately, and I mean immediately, I felt his last breath as he died,” she said.

According to the US military, the troops used hand signals, flashing lights and warning shots to get the car to stop.

But Signora Sgrena said “there was no bright light, no signal, and no checkpoint — it was a patrol”. She said that the car had already passed the last US checkpoints and was traveling at “normal speed” within 700 metres of the airport. Italian officials said that American forces had been fully informed of the rescue.

This was a horrible incident, but I think that Signora Sgrena is over-emphasizing her importance to the U.S. Other ransoms have been paid; the U.S. would not gain from her murder. I think that her being a reporter for Il Manifesto, the Italian communist daily, would also skew her perception-but I concede that getting shot at isn't going to leave a good impression anyway...

I think that this is a case of communication breakdown-everybody wasn't in the loop. It's tragic that Calipari had to pay for poor comms. I don't think that any of us would want to be in the boots of those soldiers.

This was a horrible incident, but I think that Signora Sgrena is over-emphasizing her importance to the U.S. Other ransoms have been paid; the U.S. would not gain from her murder. I think that her being a reporter for Il Manifesto, the Italian communist daily, would also skew her perception-but I concede that getting shot at isn't going to leave a good impression anyway...

I think that this is a case of communication breakdown-everybody wasn't in the loop. It's tragic that Calipari had to pay for poor comms. I don't think that any of us would want to be in the boots of those soldiers.

The U.S. (namely the Bush Admin. and the military) would gain from her murder in the sense that her news reports would not get out. It's just that simple.

I'm sorry, but they made it through 6 checkpoints along the airport road, so evidently the comm was fine. Do you mean to say that they're comm's were only bad that by some 'accident' the 7th checkpoint was not told? I doubt it.

The rate of Friendly fire casualties seem to increase whenever there are noncombatants in the War zone.
For example, the rate of friendly fire casualties in WWII was 21% of the total American casualties. In Korea, it was 18%. In Vietnam, it was 39%. In Gulf War I, it was 49%.
Bad things happen in a War Zone. Maybe that's why they call it a war zone. On the same day, a Bulgarian was also killed by possible American fire. It's too early to tell, but mistakes might have been made. Either by the driver, or the troops at the roadblock. To start pointing fingers before the facts come out, is just silly.

The rate of Friendly fire casualties seem to increase whenever there are noncombatants in the War zone.
For example, the rate of friendly fire casualties in WWII was 21% of the total American casualties. In Korea, it was 18%. In Vietnam, it was 39%. In Gulf War I, it was 49%.
Bad things happen in a War Zone. Maybe that's why they call it a war zone. On the same day, a Bulgarian was also killed by possible American fire. It's too early to tell, but mistakes might have been made. Either by the driver, or the troops at the roadblock. To start pointing fingers before the facts come out, is just silly.

I would have to say that she could point fingers, as she was there, and lived through the experience. Why can't we take her view of the events? I'd say it's pretty factual, as none of us were there, and she was. What about statements from the troops though, I'd like to hear what they had to say about it as well, and as usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between each different story.

Right Grumpy - just like during the initial invasion the hotel housing the reporters in downtown Baghdad was "accidental friendly fire".

Anyone the actually believes that the mission these soldiers had was to murder the Italian reporter is a friggen IDIOT! If the Army cannot keep a secret about the torture of prisoners or a party where some breasts were shown they certainly would not be able to keep this secret. Seriously, can you imagine sitting in the briefing room planning this mission to murder an Italian reporter. This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

She said that she and her secret service escort were speaking on their mobile phones when the firing broke out.

And they had passed the last checkpoint. I wonder if they were really looking for or paying attention to warnings?

The U.S. (namely the Bush Admin. and the military) would gain from her murder in the sense that her news reports would not get out. It's just that simple.

What news reports? She was captive for a month, so she hasn't filed anything recently.

Your love of conspiracy theories knows no bounds. Do you really believe that the Bush administration really cares about an Italian Communist? You can't possibly be serious. This is the same administration that got re-elected despite all their major screwups! They are bulletproof. I find it inconceivable that some insignificant Italian journalist, especially one who has been held captive for a month, could pose any kind of threat to Bush. And to imply that the USA was trying to rub her out is absurd.

This woman is probably ecstatic that she has a better angle and ending for the book she is going to write.

The U.S. (namely the Bush Admin. and the military) would gain from her murder in the sense that her news reports would not get out. It's just that simple.

I'm sorry, but they made it through 6 checkpoints along the airport road, so evidently the comm was fine. Do you mean to say that they're comm's were only bad that by some 'accident' the 7th checkpoint was not told? I doubt it.

But if you're trying to kill her, why wouldn't you? Are the troops so incompetent that they couldn't shoot up the car enough to ensure nobody survived? That's what doesn't add up about her story; if the US really wanted her dead, she'd be dead.

But if you're trying to kill her, why wouldn't you? Are the troops so incompetent that they couldn't shoot up the car enough to ensure nobody survived? That's what doesn't add up about her story; if the US really wanted her dead, she'd be dead.

Why would they keep her alive to tell the whole world that she was a target.

But if you're trying to kill her, why wouldn't you? Are the troops so incompetent that they couldn't shoot up the car enough to ensure nobody survived? That's what doesn't add up about her story; if the US really wanted her dead, she'd be dead.

Looks to me like they tried pretty hard to kill all of them. According to her, there were 300 or 400 shots fired.

Looks to me like they tried pretty hard to kill all of them. According to her, there were 300 or 400 shots fired.

What, she was in a position to count shots fired?

But seriously, you're going to take the position that an armed US Army patrol fired 400 shots, trying to kill the occupants of a vehicle, and failed? After they established that they had not killed her, why wouldn't they just try again? It was a dark night, with no witnesses - nobody would have known better if they just backed off 100 yards and finished the job.

But they didn't.

What, she was in a position to count shots fired?



I would say so, yes. All one would have to do is look at the riddled vehicle.

What, she was in a position to count shots fired?

But seriously, you're going to take the position that an armed US Army patrol fired 400 shots, trying to kill the occupants of a vehicle, and failed? After they established that they had not killed her, why wouldn't they just try again? It was a dark night, with no witnesses - nobody would have known better if they just backed off 100 yards and finished the job.

But they didn't.

Yes, and after firing 300-400 rounds and not killing her, it's hard to believe that one of the assassins...oops, soldiers...didn't pull out his sidearm and dispatch her. Nope, instead they called for a medevac helicopter. Can't these guys do anything right?

Yes, and after firing 300-400 rounds and not killing her, it's hard to believe that one of the assassins...oops, soldiers...didn't pull out his sidearm and dispatch her. Nope, instead they called for a medevac helicopter. Can't these guys do anything right?

That's a pretty lame argument, because then it would have looked intentional. The way they did it, it could be blamed on "faulty comms".

Let's see:

1. embedded reporters,
2. major news outlets being owned and run by Right-Winger's,
3. Bush & Co's long trail of lies about everything from soup to nuts,
4. the Geckert/WH press corps scandal,
5. not allowing filming of dead troops returning to Dover AFB,
6. the phony 9/11 Commission,
7. the outing of Valerie Plame,
8. the use of "national security" as an excuse for total secrecy,
9. the recent attempt to derail Sibel Edwards' evidence,
10. the illegal paying of political hacks with gov't funds to produce misleading and illegal Right-Wing TV/radio commercials,
12. the firing of Peter Arnett at CNN during the Iraq invasion,
13. etc., etc.

Yep, there is no Republican Lie Machine here.

That's a pretty lame argument, because then it would have looked intentional. The way they did it, it could be blamed on "faulty comms".


It would have been easy to finish the job and make it look the same. You have to take it as fact that they knew who was in the car (or else, why would they be trying to kill them), and they could have just kept firing until everybody was dead.

If there's one thing our Army is good at, it's killing civilians.

That's a pretty lame argument, because then it would have looked intentional. The way they did it, it could be blamed on "faulty comms".

To whom would it look intentional? There were no witnesses. What part of that did you not get? With no witnesses, you don't have to worry what it looks like. As long as the result is an "accident," there is no problem.

Your conspiracy doesn't make sense because it is so incomplete and doesn't match the facts. For instance, what if, after realizing they didn't kill her despite emptying a box of ammo, they took the dead Italian security guy's gun and executed her with it? That would really muddy up the situation, wouldn't it? And wouldn't that make a lot more sense than, after trying to kill her, realizing she wasn't dead and calling for medical help?

Sorry, but I have to call you nuts on this one.

'm sorry, but they made it through 6 checkpoints along the airport road, so evidently the comm was fine. Do you mean to say that they're comm's were only bad that by some 'accident' the 7th checkpoint was not told? I doubt it.

If this was intended as an assassination, I wonder why they let her through six checkpoints first? It doesn't add up.

Maybe they were just real bad shots ?
Maybe all the good shots were busy planning to kill other journalists ?
Maybe everything was messed up because Elvis had just escaped from his secret prison (along with JFK's brain) ?

Now many of us have been in combat?

Nothing like a bunch of people whose best amount of military experience is watching Rambo II (I think) analyzing and criticising a military engagement held on the other side of the Earth from the comfort of their wasy chair.

Just like I've been "nuts" about the other 12 points above. All are total fabrications!

:rolleyes:

Monday, March 7th, 2005

Il Manifesto Founder on Sgrena Shooting: This Was an Attack on Unembedded Journalism

From Last Friday, U.S. soldiers in Iraq shot at the car of Italian journalist - Giuliana Sgrena - killing an Italian intelligence agent and wounding three others.

Nicola Calipari was killed as he tried to protect Sgrena from the bullets. Sgrena was wounded in the shoulder in the attack.

Giuliana Sgrena was kidnapped in Baghdad and been held captive since February 4th by a group calling themselves - "Mujahedeen Without Borders." She had just been released and handed over to three Italian agents on Friday when the car was shot at as they drove to the Baghdad airport.

In an interview with Sky Italia, Sgrena described talked about what happened:

* Giuliana Sgrena, speaking on Sky Italia.

The U.S. military said that the car was speeding as it approached a checkpoint. In a statement - it claimed that soldiers first tried to warn the driver to stop by "hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots in front of the car."

In interview with Italian channel La 7, Giuliana Sgrena disputed the military's account stating that there was no bright light, no signal - and that the car was traveling at regular speed. She also told SKY TG24 that a ransom was paid for her release and it was possible that she was deliberately targeted by US forces. She said: "The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free hostages is known. The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been a target."

The pentagon has said only that the incident is under investigation.

* Luciana Castellina, one the founder of Giuliana Sgrena's newspaper - Il Manifesto. She a well-known public intellectual in Italy. She has directed political reviews and published many books and articles on social and economic issues. She was a member of the Communist party and was elected several times to the Italian Parliament. She was also member of the European Parliament, where she presided over the Committee on Culture, Media and International Economic Relations. She subsequently served as president of Italia-Cinema until 2001. Luciana Castellina is on the steering committee of the International Network for Cultural Diversity and is president of the NoWarTV co-operative.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: In an interview with Sky Italia, Sgrena described what happened.

GIULIANA SGRENA: [Translated from Italian]We were on our way to the airport, and we thought we were finally safe, because the area where we were was under the control of the United States. We therefore thought we had escaped the gravest area and entered into a more friendly area, although I was still nervous as my hostage takers had warned me to be careful, because it was the Americans who did not want me to be free, and returned to Italy alive. I just took that as a last threat from my hostage takers and did not really take it seriously. But then suddenly we found ourselves under an immense amount of bullets, something terrible, without any warning, and we realized that nearby there was an American tank which was shooting at us.

AMY GOODMAN: Giuliana Sgrena in an interview. The U.S. military has a different story. They say the car was speeding as it approached a checkpoint. In a statement, the military claims soldiers first tried to warn the driver to stop, by, quote, “hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots in front of the car.” In an interview with an Italian TV channel, Giuliana Sgrena disputed the military's account, stating there was no bright light, no signal, that the car was traveling at regular speed. She also told Italian television that a ransom was paid for her release, and it was possible she was deliberately targeted by U.S. forces. She said, quote, “The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free hostages is known. The fact they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been a target,” Sgrena said. The Pentagon has said only the incident is under investigation. Joining us now on the telephone from Rome is Luciana Castellina. She is one of the founders of Giuliana Sgrena’s newspaper, Il Manifesto. She has just returned from the state funeral of Nicola Calipari, the intelligence official who was killed. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Hello.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s very good to have you on Democracy Now! again. Can you describe the funeral today and the atmosphere in Rome?

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Well, I would say that the funeral -- first of all, there were thousands and thousands of people who attended the funeral, and since yesterday, where the coffin had been exposed in Piazza Venezia, there was a long queue which lasted for hours, because everybody wanted to go and make an homage to Nicola. He is called Nicola now by everybody, which is his name because -- I mean, everybody was so grateful because he sacrificed his life. So, the funeral was, I would say, very human. I mean, everybody was there, from the government, the opposition, all the institutions, the family, the friends, the representatives of the church. And I think it was quite human, because I think the government, Italian government, was quite embarrassed because they found themselves in a -- well, you know, I mean, one of the best and most loved men of the secret service which sacrificed his life has been killed by an American bullet. It’s not an easy situation.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about how high up in intelligence he was, the title, International Operations Chief of Italy's military intelligence service, certainly a position that I'm sure was often criticized by Il Manifesto, your newspaper?

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: The services, you mean, in general?

AMY GOODMAN: I'm saying that Nicola Calipari, the fact that he was Chief of International Operations of Italy's military intelligence service, he was, I'm sure, often a target of criticism of your newspaper, Il Manifesto?

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Well, [inaudible] secret service is [inaudible] the secret service of your own country, do you? We didn’t. But with Nicola, for months, human relation -- he is nearly friendly relationship was established because the editor of Il Manifesto and Giuliana's husband have met Nicola several times, because he was going up and down from Baghdad to here. And really, I mean, everybody trusted him and appreciated the fact that he risked his life to save Giuliana so, that was -- it was a real shock when we were told that he was -- that he was killed. I mean, he was killed for a very courageous gesture, because he covered Giuliana's body, who could have been killed otherwise.

AMY GOODMAN: Luciana Castellina, we'd like to ask you to wait for a moment. We have to break. And when we come back, I want to ask you about the significance of this death and talk about what it means in Italy, whose population has been very opposed to the occupation, although Prime Minister Berlusconi has been very much an ally of President Bush, and what this means.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: As we continue our conversation with Luciana Castellina, a well-known public intellectual in Italy, one of the founders of Il Manifesto, the newspaper of Giuliana Sgrena -- also, Luciana Castellina was a member of the Italian parliament -- talking about the attitude of people right now, what this means with a population very opposed to the occupation, but a prime minister, Berlusconi, who is very much an ally of President Bush.

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Well, let's say that the population, in general, is very angry. Not because they think that this was a deliberate killing, you know. I mean, there is an inquiry of the judges. It's an inquiry for murder, bluntly, murder. They wouldn't say what really happened. Maybe would one never know. But it is not because it was a deliberate act, but because people think that it was not just a casualty, an incident. It means that in Iraq, they shoot, and they shoot everybody without -- with great arrogance, and with -- not taking into account lives of human beings. And this is the war. This is the result of the war, of the violence which the war brings. And you know, that the majority of the Italian population has been against the war, and all, you know, the polls have given this result, and we had perhaps the biggest demonstration for peace in Italy. So, you can imagine that now, I mean, people have really a sense of anger and that the idea that you have to pull back the occupation, the military presence in Iraq, it is very, very strong. Well, why should we stay there, by the way, because not only because we are against the war, but because it means that we don't count nothing. We don't have a say if an American patrol can shoot a car without thinking seriously about what they were doing when they had been -- everybody had told them that they were aiming for the airport. They were perfectly informed. It was not at a checkpoint, and so on. This idea, you know, that -- of the violence which the war brings and that war never brings a new and better society, this is very strong, and people are really very angry. You can feel it in the population -- I mean, among the people who were attending the funeral, this anger.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this could mean that the Italian troops, what, 3,000 of them, that they could be called home?

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Well, you know, I am not very optimistic about that, because Berlusconi is probably the best ally of Bush, and I don't think he's going to do it, but his position is now more difficult than it used to be, because of what happened, you know.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Luciana Castellina about the death of the military intelligence chief who saved the life of Giuliana Sgrena by throwing his body on top of hers in a car as U.S. troops opened fire. You had said that you don't think that she was targeted, but Giuliana Sgrena herself has raised serious questions about this in interviews and in her writing. You have spoken to Giuliana?

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Yes, of course, I have spoken with Giuliana, of course. Giuliana herself she says, I don't know. She only -- I mean, what is important of what Giuliana said, that they were not at the checkpoint, that they were not going fast, that they were already within the area of the airport, and that then there is another agent of the secret services which was with Giuliana in the same car and who said the same thing, and he confirmed that the American authorities had been perfectly informed. By the way, it would have been impossible otherwise. So, again, I come back, it doesn't mean that it was deliberate, but it means that it was -- that there are shootings against human beings made like that without thinking twice. You see? This is a terrible thing. We know now about Giuliana, because she was Italian, because we had an important man of the secret services which had been killed. But how many others have been killed in the same conditions? How many? Hundreds or thousands, perhaps. That is what comes out from this, what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Luciana Castellina, what about the ransom that is reportedly paid? Also in the case of the Simonas, when they were released this issue was raised with officials in Italy anonymously saying, yes, we think they were worth it.

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Well, I hear you very badly, so I don't know if I am answering your questions, because it's very -- your voice is very far, but anyway, you mean what about those who kidnapped them?

AMY GOODMAN: The issue of Italy paying ransom.

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Oh, yes, if it’s worth. Well, you see, I think first of all, it was -- to pay a ransom and save lives in the conditions of that war, it's correct. You have to do it. If the journalists -- I mean, you have to protect the life of journalists who are going and speaking to the people. Otherwise, the result would be that we wouldn't have any journalists anymore or only the embedded journalists. We want people to stay there and go and talk to people and give information about them. We have to guarantee them, I mean, their life and the freedom to do their job, which is so important for democracy. So, I think that it was worthwhile paying the ransom, and you always have to do it when lives are in danger, you know, and in a situation like that one, of course, I think -- and this, I think it's also the popular feeling that people think that this was correct to do so in both cases.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Luciana, what do you think this means for the future of the very close relationship between Berlusconi and Bush, and do you think something unpredictable can happen at this point?

LUCIANA CASTELLINA: Well, I don't think so, really. You know, the coalition is so strong, and Berlusconi has made a point of honor of being the best friend, personal friend, and ally of Mr. Bush, and so I -- but let's say that the option of the war in Iraq, who was not popular at the beginning, is becoming less and less popular. I mean, more and more unpopular, let's say, and this is something which, of course, will make the position of Berlusconi more difficult, more embarrassed. Although, unfortunately I don't think he's going to derive the conclusions he should derive.

AMY GOODMAN: Luciana Castellina, I want to thank you very much for being with us and also note whatever the real story is behind the shooting of Giuliana Sgrena and the killing of the intelligence official who helped to save her life through his own death, this seems to be a story all too often that takes place in Iraq, where you have a situation of U.S. soldiers opening fire. So often we get different stories or perhaps more often than not, especially if it's Iraqis who are killed, we don't even hear the other side. In this case, we hear at least that there is a dispute of the story. I want to thank you very much for being with us, Luciana Castellina, well-known public intellectual in Italy, one of the founders of Giuliana Sgrena's newspaper, Il Manifesto. Luciana Castellina was a member of the Italian parliament as well as the European parliament.

You can listen to the full interview here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/07/1449232

Just like I've been "nuts" about the other 12 points above. All are total fabrications!

:rolleyes:

Sorry AJS but despite the very real validity of many of those 12 points they have nothing to do with the Italian communist. If we had really wanted her dead she would be dead. One RPG and there would be little we would be talking about. The fact that only 1 out of the 4 occupants was killed speaks volumes and puts a crediblity gap on her on the spot call of 400 rounds fired. The Bushies and the neocons could care less about some communist reporter. For all we know they purposely ignored the warnings.
Bottom line: Inconsequential....Next

Sorry AJS but despite the very real validity of many of those 12 points they have nothing to do with the Italian communist. If we had really wanted her dead she would be dead. One RPG and there would be little we would be talking about. The fact that only 1 out of the 4 occupants was killed speaks volumes and puts a crediblity gap on her on the spot call of 400 rounds fired. The Bushies and the neocons could care less about some communist reporter. For all we know they purposely ignored the warnings.
Bottom line: Inconsequential....Next

I don't think so. At best, this is a case of blatant disregard for the safety of non-combatants.

By the way, when was/what is the last vehicle full of right-wing journalists that got "accidently" shot up?

By the way, when was/what is the last vehicle full of right-wing journalists that got "accidently" shot up?

But we all know that all press is Liberal press, according to the cons. Even the ones owned by conservative corporations. Evil, evil press. Must shoot <strike>film</strike> journalists.

The truth has just come out..........It turn out that those evil "army types" thought that Dan Rather was in that car, and were under orders to terminate him..........

It would have been easy to finish the job and make it look the same. You have to take it as fact that they knew who was in the car (or else, why would they be trying to kill them), and they could have just kept firing until everybody was dead.

If there's one thing our Army is good at, it's killing civilians.
That's just as nasty as AJ and almost as crazy.

That's just as nasty as AJ and almost as crazy.

not crazy, unintentional as well as intentional civilian death has always been one of the hallmarks of war. Despite all our high tech gadgetry we still do a remarkable job of missing the target.

not crazy, unintentional as well as intentional civilian death has always been one of the hallmarks of war. Despite all our high tech gadgetry we still do a remarkable job of missing the target.
If there's one thing our Army is good at, it's killing civilians

This is the phrase I responded to, it implies that we are intentionally killing civilians at a higher rate than we kill the opposing military

War isn't a safe pastime and the civilian population of our enemies is not the responsibility of the American military That they do such a remarkable job of protecting them is unparalleled in history, a fact that is largely ignored by our detractors at home and abroad.

Dissent isn't the highest form of patriotism unless you can lose your life for it. That condition hasn't existed in this country for some time now. I would suggest to you that the service of those young people in our military, honoring their oath to defend our Constitution and obey the civilian authority, would be a higher form. It is still possible for them to lose their lives in that action Sitting on our butts and blaming them for accidental military exceptions to their policy isn't very life threatening.

Dissent isn't the highest form of patriotism unless you can lose your life for it. That condition hasn't existed in this country for some time now. I would suggest to you that the service of those young people in our military, honoring their oath to defend our Constitution and obey the civilian authority, would be a higher form. It is still possible for them to lose their lives in that action Sitting on our butts and blaming them for accidental military exceptions to their policy isn't very life threatening.

I suggest to reread my post. Ok, do it one more time. Done yet, it was short. Now, please share one shred of evidence that contradicts what I said. Until then you are nothing more than a right wing shill screeching at anything and anyone the dares to hint at besmirching the valient sacrifices our ever faithful troops are making on the neocons behalf. As for your fascist cravings, please spare me the lecture on what patriotism is. You clearly exemplify that which Jefferson warned about. Good work, I'm sure you could find a job with the White house press corps should you ever need a job.

I suggest to reread my post. Ok, do it one more time. Done yet, it was short. Now, please share one shred of evidence that contradicts what I said. Until then you are nothing more than a right wing shill screeching at anything and anyone the dares to hint at besmirching the valient sacrifices our ever faithful troops are making on the neocons behalf. As for your fascist cravings, please spare me the lecture on what patriotism is. You clearly exemplify that which Jefferson warned about. Good work, I'm sure you could find a job with the White house press corps should you ever need a job.
The fact that we occaisionally miss our targets or perhaps intelligence gives us the wrong target doesn't make the efforts on the part otf those who represent us on the battlefield ignoble. Your sig line comes from a man who did risk his life and everything he hoped to have in life for his dissent, your whining doesn't reach that level. My point is, it doesn't reach the level of patriotic sacrifice of those young people who represent us. They don't represent Bush or Kerry or either party, they serve and represent you and me. That you don't see that speaks to your own narrow political vision, not mine. They don't decide when to go to war or who to attack, they serve us through our elected officials. If our loyalties are questionable, theirs are not.

he never attacks the soldiers he pays them their due. what he seems to be attacking is the fact that our so called hi-tech military despite the fact that it 'advertises' itself to the US citizenry as low - civilian casualty, and is portrayed in the media with high tech night vision, etc, but only showing the 'hits', is in reality nowhere near as accurate as portrayed to the public. Every other world media source shows the high amount of 'collateral damage' but our own which is just serving as the propoganda machine for the right. So I think his point is, despite what we're told, our military is and has been quite good at civilian casualties. This in turn, read: we only kill bad guys, and we're so dominant that as a soldier, or soldiers parent you have a false sense of security. This in turn helps recruitment of said noble, well intentioned young persons fighting a war under false pretense. I always honor our troops even when their commander is a lying pu$$y chickenhawk.

he never attacks the soldiers he pays them their due. what he seems to be attacking is the fact that our so called hi-tech military despite the fact that it 'advertises' itself to the US citizenry as low - civilian casualty, and is portrayed in the media with high tech night vision, etc, but only showing the 'hits', is in reality nowhere near as accurate as portrayed to the public. Every other world media source shows the high amount of 'collateral damage' but our own which is just serving as the propoganda machine for the right. So I think his point is, despite what we're told, our military is and has been quite good at civilian casualties. This in turn, read: we only kill bad guys, and we're so dominant that as a soldier, or soldiers parent you have a false sense of security. This in turn helps recruitment of said noble, well intentioned young persons fighting a war under false pretense. I always honor our troops even when their commander is a lying pu$$y chickenhawk.
What he did was stepped in and explained how the shortcomings of the weapons systems justified that statement about how good our military is at killing civilians, I find that attitude as well as the staqtement to be inflamatory. I enjoy reading some of the crazy things posted by AJS and I son't give them a lot of credence because he is obviously unbalanced. Bush bashing is harmless, and political banter here is usually not to the death and is fun for the most part.I hate it when the anger and political hatred spills over to the military. They are not responsible, period.

Their job is to kill ouir enemies until whatever political goal our civilian leadership has in mind is reached. What the world seems to demand is that war should be clean and surgical and that is an impossible expectation. It is an impossible burden to put on the young people who serve us. They do a remarkable job and that doesn't have to be publicly praised every day but the tragic part doesn't have to be spotlighted either. If it is, it should be recognized for what it is, the tragic consequence of combat. It is not due to the bloodthirsty nature of our military, and it is also not due to a technological failure in the design of our weapons. It is war and the sooner it is over the better. It will end when the bastards who are killing our people and their own countrymen decide to lay down their arms and take part in the political process. If we wish to condemn someones bloodthirsty nature, those who make and set those bombs would be a good place to start. We see very few statements here about their skill at killing civilians.

Their job is to kill ouir enemies until whatever political goal our civilian leadership has in mind is reached.

yes they do quite a good job, but all the Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. our political goal was BS and the war is snaitized for US consumption. Sold hook, line and sinker that our hi tech weaponry has reduced collateral damage to next to nil.

You keep thinking we are attacking the troops, which I don't think we are, but his simple fact is our troops have killed a load of civs. Using the, well they do too doesn't fly, they are not advertising war is neat and clean and only bad guys die to their populace. If you hide the 'tragic parts' once again you are asking the media to become more of a ministry of propoganda than it already is. Why was it that Fox got all the scoops in the last war? Serendipity? and guess what it won't end as you say as you lack the ability to even comprehend that many in the world of Islam think we are the bastards killing folks.
Islam sees a man who lies to declare war which they see as an invasion for oil, nothing more as 'bloodthirsty'. why would they lie down arms to accept a puppet government like
Iran under the Shah or Pakistan. (note: THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS, I"M EXPRESSING CONVENTIONAL AND POPULAR ISLAMIC THOUGHT). A man who used the phrase
'CRUSADE' doesn't gasin too much affectiion especially when he represents Oil in this nation.

So tell me what is our Political Goal now? WMD's was a lie, we've deposed a dictator
(one with oil, other non essential dictators can rest easy) and now we're Nation Building.
So there's some who fight against it, are you suprised? Your US Myopia is clearly reflected by your lack of ability to see any other side of the issue but your own.
You''d make a fine member of the press corp indeed. So please read again, no slag to our troops, simple IRREFUTABLE point made (you've never challenged his initial post)
and you take it as an attack on our troops and country.
So let me simplify:
OUR TROOPS RULE, THEY ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD
but
THEY ARE FIGHTING A BS WAR INITIATED BY A BS MAN
and people are dying.

Their job is to kill ouir enemies until whatever political goal our civilian leadership has in mind is reached.

yes they do quite a good job, but all the Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. our political goal was BS and the war is snaitized for US consumption. Sold hook, line and sinker that our hi tech weaponry has reduced collateral damage to next to nil.

You keep thinking we are attacking the troops, which I don't think we are, but his simple fact is our troops have killed a load of civs. Using the, well they do too doesn't fly, they are not advertising war is neat and clean and only bad guys die to their populace. If you hide the 'tragic parts' once again you are asking the media to become more of a ministry of propoganda than it already is. Why was it that Fox got all the scoops in the last war? Serendipity? and guess what it won't end as you say as you lack the ability to even comprehend that many in the world of Islam think we are the bastards killing folks.
Islam sees a man who lies to declare war which they see as an invasion for oil, nothing more as 'bloodthirsty'. why would they lie down arms to accept a puppet government like
Iran under the Shah or Pakistan. (note: THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS, I"M EXPRESSING CONVENTIONAL AND POPULAR ISLAMIC THOUGHT). A man who used the phrase
'CRUSADE' doesn't gasin too much affectiion especially when he represents Oil in this nation.

So tell me what is our Political Goal now? WMD's was a lie, we've deposed a dictator
(one with oil, other non essential dictators can rest easy) and now we're Nation Building.
So there's some who fight against it, are you suprised? Your US Myopia is clearly reflected by your lack of ability to see any other side of the issue but your own.
You''d make a fine member of the press corp indeed. So please read again, no slag to our troops, simple IRREFUTABLE point made (you've never challenged his initial post)
and you take it as an attack on our troops and country.
So let me simplify:
OUR TROOPS RULE, THEY ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD
but
THEY ARE FIGHTING A BS WAR INITIATED BY A BS MAN
and people are dying.
I don't give a flying ---- what you think about the political reasons we are in this war. We can debate that endlessly and I'm sure we (collectively) will do just that. What we are talking aboutr is the purpose of the military. They kill people, that's what they do. If you want to arrest someone, call the police. If you have a hostage situation and may have to kill someone, call SWAT. These guys went into Iraq in tanks and troop carriers with air support, they shot their way to Baghdad. THAT'S what they do. They were sent by politicians, like they always are. They don't get to choose, they obey and kill people. don't claim to be supporting them while youi whine about the civilians that die because the enemy is hiding among them and shooting at our guys. Cry for OUR guys when they get wounded or die. ***** about Bush and the neocons or the freakin libbies that don't understand the situation, if you happen to be a neocon. these guys are on our side and the civilian deaths are tragic but they will stop when the bad guys (that's the other side) quit fighting. I don't give a rats patoot how we got here, we have PEOPLE in harms way and they don't need to think WE, THEIR people, are against them. Calling them murderers ie, civilian killers, isn't supportive. They don't want to do it either, it comes with the job. Those civilians are collateral damage, unintentional products of the savagery of war. Most of those deaths happen because that's where our enemies choose to hide and fight, not because our people are such savages.

When was/who is the last right-wing journalist(s) and/or their travelling party that got "accidently" killed by U.S. forces in similar circumstances?

I don't give a flying ---- what you think about the political reasons we are in this war. We can debate that endlessly and I'm sure we (collectively) will do just that. What we are talking aboutr is the purpose of the military. They kill people, that's what they do. If you want to arrest someone, call the police. If you have a hostage situation and may have to kill someone, call SWAT. These guys went into Iraq in tanks and troop carriers with air support, they shot their way to Baghdad. THAT'S what they do. They were sent by politicians, like they always are. They don't get to choose, they obey and kill people. don't claim to be supporting them while youi whine about the civilians that die because the enemy is hiding among them and shooting at our guys. Cry for OUR guys when they get wounded or die. ***** about Bush and the neocons or the freakin libbies that don't understand the situation, if you happen to be a neocon. these guys are on our side and the civilian deaths are tragic but they will stop when the bad guys (that's the other side) quit fighting. I don't give a rats patoot how we got here, we have PEOPLE in harms way and they don't need to think WE, THEIR people, are against them. Calling them murderers ie, civilian killers, isn't supportive. They don't want to do it either, it comes with the job. Those civilians are collateral damage, unintentional products of the savagery of war. Most of those deaths happen because that's where our enemies choose to hide and fight, not because our people are such savages.

SnakeBite, while their ranks may not be shown on this forum, you can rest assured that the people supporting your position FAR exceed those against.

These guys your "debating" this issue with are the exact thing they accuse the "neocons" of being. Self centered children who can only think of themselves. While they will claim to be concerned for all the innocent lives affected by this war in the end it somehow (don't ask me how because I will never be able to understand it) centers back to themselves.

This maybe the most disturbing thread I've ever read on this forum. However, it is the ability to express views like these that our MEN and WOMAN are fighting for. They don't know or care what the politicians are fighting for.

[QUOTE=AJS]I don't think so. At best, this is a case of blatant disregard for the safety of non-combatants.QUOTE]

I can see this point; but I just don't see her as a target, let alone a high-priority target.

This maybe the most disturbing thread I've ever read on this forum.

I thought the other thread with what Fredrico and I said was the "scariest" thread you've ever seen here? Are you really scared, disturbed, both, neither, don't know, or what?

Or just grandstanding again? :rolleyes:

**YAWN**

The fact that we occaisionally miss our targets or perhaps intelligence gives us the wrong target doesn't make the efforts on the part otf those who represent us on the battlefield ignoble. Your sig line comes from a man who did risk his life and everything he hoped to have in life for his dissent, your whining doesn't reach that level. My point is, it doesn't reach the level of patriotic sacrifice of those young people who represent us. They don't represent Bush or Kerry or either party, they serve and represent you and me. That you don't see that speaks to your own narrow political vision, not mine. They don't decide when to go to war or who to attack, they serve us through our elected officials. If our loyalties are questionable, theirs are not.

OK, I'm going to make this very easy for you. This is what I wrote:

"not crazy, unintentional as well as intentional civilian death has always been one of the hallmarks of war. Despite all our high tech gadgetry we still do a remarkable job of missing the target."

Lets break it down;

1) "unintentional as well as intentional civilian death has always been one of the hallmarks of war". A statement on the horrific nature of warfare. I think it is fairly neutral, one in fact that is decidedly apolitical. Refute the statement or more importantly, please point out the left leaning political inferences.

2) "Despite all our high tech gadgetry we still do a remarkable job of missing the target"
No where did I impugn our military, whine or otherwise even make any snide off hand remarks about our chickenhawk administation. What you infererred from this again speaks volumes about your own narrow political views. You side step the point that We the People were lied to. Why all the footage extolling the pinpoint nature of our multibillion dollar hardware when in fact it is still imprecise. As, see 1 above, that is war.

Lifelover then jumps in with this gem, "Self centered children who can only think of themselves. While they will claim to be concerned for all the innocent lives affected by this war in the end it somehow (don't ask me how because I will never be able to understand it) centers back to themselves."

Please enlighten us all with some shred of anything to support your trolling statement. AJS started this thread under the assumption that we ( our military )
purposefully tried to off some communist journalist, it veers off course and now we
who continue to hold this admistration responsible for telling the truth ( still waiting ) are self centered children. Wow, I am still amazeds me, even after 4 long years, of the myobic BS you right wing hacks continue to spew.

Lastly I feature a quote from a man that makes you and your brethren look like pissants in comparison and you then go on to attack my "narrow political views" when in fact none were offered. ( See 1 and 2 above ) Please refrain from any more assinine statements until you can back them up.

so you either have the reading comprehension of a 6 year old or a myopia supported by a long streak of denial.
this has never been an indictment of our troops and since I'm sure none or next to none read this forum I gotta assume this isn't a morale killer. We understand people die, but what our Govt sold us is
a) High Tech Pinpoint weaponry cuts civilain loss to next to nil (LIE#1)
they feature footage on what used to be News, but really it is propoganda selling WAR to our populace, making it seem NOT SO HORRIFIC (LIE#2)
b) this helps sell the good folks of this country (many in uniform) to fight a war with shifting political agendas (WMD - LIE #3), (Deposing a dictator - LIE #4, we have a fine record of supporting dictators worldwide including this one) by insulating said public from the true horrors of war, which we are well aware of but most are not.
c) we have enough manpower to fight this war (Lie#5) as 'reservists and National Guardsmen are doing multiple 1 year tours)

and FYI, many in the military are aware of this BS, it's why many are not re-enlsiting
Reservist are calling it a career as soon as they can and our own military wants to up their budget to increase advertising to attract new recruits. See the post in training about riding a trainer (Guy in San Diego not used to it, but forced top by the rain)
ex military officer (Lt.) would couldn't sign on again to a BS Chickenhawks BS Military.

there are people in this world that think our government lies?

the horror!

70%, a significant increase compared to the same question one year ago, is in favor of pulling Italian troops from Iraq

"The coalition of the willing", eh?

Italian public opinion, that is.

http://notizie.virgilio.it/informazione/top_news/index.html?cart=11615241

Results of a poll by Apcom-Ipsos were reported today:
49% of Italians believe the US military is responsible for the unjustifiable episode
70% are convinced the US government will not tell the truth and will not provide the information needed to understand what actually happened
70%, a significant increase compared to the same question one year ago, is in favor of pulling Italian troops from Iraq


Results of a poll by LL research were reported today:
100% of the people polled don't give a F*** what the Italians believe in regards to this issue.

your poll was 1.
sorry I really don't think you are 100%
but thanx for another 'quality' post


"It is better to remain quite and have them think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
-Mark Twain

Overall 2.75/10

Frankly this is an embarassment to your country.

Grasshopper, if you wish to qualify for the troll olympics I suggest you study the masters. You could learn a lot from RedMenace, TiJeanKerouac, and Ishmael.

:D

Laff

My

Yass

Off!

:D

Rank amateur!

But I think he's been too busy stalking me lately - living vicariously through my personal life and neglecting his studies.

Creativity 2/10
Execution 5/10
Complexity 1/10
Effect 3/10

Overall 2.75/10

Frankly this is an embarassment to your country.

Grasshopper, if you wish to qualify for the troll olympics I suggest you study the masters. You could learn a lot from RedMenace, TiJeanKerouac, and Ishmael.
The theme was ok though. The only people in this country who care what the Italians think can't get elected anyway.

I don't get it. Who exactly are the only people in this country who care what the Italians think, and why can't they get elected?
Liberals.
Conservatives.

it's a very fine line between being clever and stupid

Italian public opinion, that is.

http://notizie.virgilio.it/informazione/top_news/index.html?cart=11615241

Results of a poll by Apcom-Ipsos were reported today:
49% of Italians believe the US military is responsible for the unjustifiable episode
70% are convinced the US government will not tell the truth and will not provide the information needed to understand what actually happened
70%, a significant increase compared to the same question one year ago, is in favor of pulling Italian troops from Iraq

I wonder if the numbers will change once the Italians "look at the riddled vehicle", as AJS put it.

http://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/cronaca/autosgrena/autosgrena.html