"In March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who was travelling in a car that refused to slow down for a coalition checkpoint."
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Sunday May 01, 2005 @09:54AM (#12397724)
In March, U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who was travelling in a car that - according to US troops - refused to slow down for a coalition checkpoint.
Not really, he made a completely fair correction pointing out that that's only the US army side of the story, and not a given fact. Suppose you were an innocent suspect of a crime. Would you like to be a killer, according to someone who allegedly saw it or to be be just "a killer". Thought so.
According to the Italian version of the event, they weren't speeding through the checkpoint, nor were they given any warning that there was a checkpoint up ahead (no lights, signs, or soldiers waving them down).
If they had satellite photos of that vehicle, you KNOW that vehicle was under constant surveillance and electronic monitoring of the cell phone usage in the vehicle.
That car was on a secure road with permission from the US and the Italian commander was in contact with the US command. The only thing the US didn't know (supposedly and I doubt that was true) was that it was Sgrena in the car.
The hell?
They have satellite photos of the area. It's one of the things that make the road secure. You don't exactly have a satellite follow a single car. They do monitor certain areas, such as the one that that car was going through.
The other thing that makes the road secure are checkpoints. Ones that you should expect to encounter.
Your knee-jerk responces are indicative of groupthink, and nothing more.
First of all, the US is happy to whip out satellite photos to "prove" it's case. But not to bother monitoring an important diplomatic vehicle. Right.
Second, the people involved HAD ALREADY PASSED SEVERAL CHECKPOINTS. They THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE just minutes from the airport. They did not expect to be fired on WITHOUT WARNING. (Claims about lights and lasers are so much horseshit from the US military - either that or they were done so stupidly that no vehicle could expect to see them. )
Well, according to Sgrena, the car was fired upon by a tank. Or possibly several hundred rounds of machine-gun fire. She's made both claims.
Calipari was, apparently, experienced in this sort of thing, making it strange that this happened. It's clear that the U.S. forces weren't properly informed of the Italian actions, but even so, he should have known how to deal with a roadblock.
Sgrena doesn't help matters by changing her story every ten minutes.
I don't know. But she is lying, about at least some of the details.
The car was not fired upon by a tank. The car was not hit by several hundred rounds of machine-gun fire. In either case she would not be around to make statements of any kind.
What would the killers gain by lying, knowing that a huge amount of people will believe them simply because it's the "US"?
Cough. Isn't that, like, backwards?
I don't know the whole truth of the matter, obviously. But w
"I call BS. Go sit in a car and ask somebody to fire at you with the type of machine gun they used. You will think an whole army of tanks is shooting you to pieces (and wet your pants while you're at it)."
The problem isn't the orginal statement. It's one thing to think you were shot at by a tank and hundreds of rounds, learn differently, and correct your statements. When you learn the facts and ignore them, that's when your character and motives are rightly called into question.
Just an addendum to that: In another post I described Sgrena as "unreliable", which is more charitable. Lying implies intent to deceive; it is quite possible that she was just confused about the situation, which is understandable.
Having said that, she is clearly unreliable as a witness.
Isn't it possible that she isn't knowing lying, but confused? If I'm being hustled away from kidnappers, caught in a fire fight in the dark, and see my rescuer killed in front of me, I'm going to have a hard time counting bullets... number of shots fired at me = lots = a high number. And any loud noise could be misinterpeted as a "tank" if you are panicked.
Nope. If you've ever been to Iraq or around military vehicles, you'd know the difference. Particularly between a "machine gun" and a 120mm smoothbore cannon on a tank.
- The lady was caught in a firefight unexpectedly, and the person shielding her from bullets was killed.
- She makes statements in another language, leaving plenty of room for the american press to 'interpret'.
- For a person confused, in the dark, hearing shots coming thier direction, there's not a lot of difference between a bradley and a 'tank'.
- An average american on the street in broad daylight will call a bradley a 'tank' when they see it go by.
It is NOT clear that US forces weren't informed. While it is possible the local troops weren't, the Italians have made it clear that the Italian commander was in contact with the US command and that the car was on a secure road with US military permission. They had already passed several checkpoints - does the US mean to say that checkpoints do not relay down the line that a vehicle is coming on a SECURE ROAD? I doubt that very much. Even in Vietnam, on guard duty, when the Duty Officer comes around, yo
Actually, the checkpoint in question was one of a number of two-stage roadblocks which have been set up in Iraq. For various reasons, these roadblocks consist of a checkpoint manned by Iraqis who wave you through, and then just a little ways down the road another checkpoint manned by Americans. The driver in question mistakenly assumed that, because they'd been waved through by the Iraqi forces, it was OK to go, and accelerated back up to full speed after passing through. Result: car approaching the America
This was the secure road from the largest US base in the country directly to the airport. The US ambassador just used it a half hour earlier.
What are the odds that IRAQI forces of ANY kind were allowed to man checkpoints on that road, given the unreliable nature of Iraqi forces?
I don't think so.
If it was, then that's more demonstration of US military incompetence. There's NO WAY you could justify using Iraqi forces on that road to man checkpoints - I don't care
They were not "zooming" and there was no checkpoint.
Read the story. The speed of the vehicle was no more than 40mph - on a SECURE road - and the "checkpoint" was an armored vehicle and some troops thirty feet off to the side of the road - a common enough sight in Iraq and one which does NOT indicate a "checkpoint".
Also, the Italian agent in charge had already rescued TWO OTHER hostages in Iraq - who had been critical of the US occupation. I'd say that was about as much experience as he needed - a
Other points nonwithstanding, "rescued" and "paid a ransom for" are somewhat different terms, and should not be used interchangeably.
And the "checkpoint assasination" seems to be rather ineffective then, as she was taken to a hospital by the US soldiers, instead of being given a shot to the head, as one would assume you would want to do, if given orders to assasinate.
Bodies returned to Italy would be examined by a medical examiner - shots to the head would be a little obvious.
While it is not certain the intent was to assassinate Sgrena and the agents, it is highly likely that the idiots at the checkpoint were the same trigger-happy morons who have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi civilians and a number of foreign journalists due to their fear and incompetence.
And blaming this on fear of resistance attacks merely means that the US military is comprised of la
"Nature is very un-American. Nature never hurries."
-- William George Jordan
Correction (Score:0, Flamebait)
Further correction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Further correction (Score:1)
Re:Further correction (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Italian version of the event, they weren't speeding through the checkpoint, nor were they given any warning that there was a checkpoint up ahead (no lights, signs, or soldiers waving them down).
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Fake satellite photos say otherwise.
If they had satellite photos of that vehicle, you KNOW that vehicle was under constant surveillance and electronic monitoring of the cell phone usage in the vehicle.
That car was on a secure road with permission from the US and the Italian commander was in contact with the US command. The only thing the US didn't know (supposedly and I doubt that was true) was that it was Sgrena in the car.
Re:Further correction (Score:1)
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
First of all, the US is happy to whip out satellite photos to "prove" it's case. But not to bother monitoring an important diplomatic vehicle. Right.
Second, the people involved HAD ALREADY PASSED SEVERAL CHECKPOINTS. They THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE just minutes from the airport. They did not expect to be fired on WITHOUT WARNING. (Claims about lights and lasers are so much horseshit from the US military - either that or they were done so stupidly that no vehicle could expect to see them. )
And more importa
Re:Further correction (Score:4, Interesting)
Calipari was, apparently, experienced in this sort of thing, making it strange that this happened. It's clear that the U.S. forces weren't properly informed of the Italian actions, but even so, he should have known how to deal with a roadblock.
Sgrena doesn't help matters by changing her story every ten minutes.
Re:Further correction (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know. But she is lying, about at least some of the details.
The car was not fired upon by a tank. The car was not hit by several hundred rounds of machine-gun fire. In either case she would not be around to make statements of any kind.
What would the killers gain by lying, knowing that a huge amount of people will believe them simply because it's the "US"?
Cough. Isn't that, like, backwards?
I don't know the whole truth of the matter, obviously. But w
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
The problem isn't the orginal statement. It's one thing to think you were shot at by a tank and hundreds of rounds, learn differently, and correct your statements. When you learn the facts and ignore them, that's when your character and motives are rightly called into question.
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Having said that, she is clearly unreliable as a witness.
Re:Further correction (Score:1)
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Well, okay. She could be lying, or she could be crazy.
Re:Further correction (Score:1)
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
- The lady was caught in a firefight unexpectedly, and the person shielding her from bullets was killed.
- She makes statements in another language, leaving plenty of room for the american press to 'interpret'.
- For a person confused, in the dark, hearing shots coming thier direction, there's not a lot of difference between a bradley and a 'tank'.
- An average american on the street in broad daylight will call a bradley a 'tank' when they see it go by.
Some confusion is
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
It is NOT clear that US forces weren't informed. While it is possible the local troops weren't, the Italians have made it clear that the Italian commander was in contact with the US command and that the car was on a secure road with US military permission. They had already passed several checkpoints - does the US mean to say that checkpoints do not relay down the line that a vehicle is coming on a SECURE ROAD? I doubt that very much. Even in Vietnam, on guard duty, when the Duty Officer comes around, yo
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Perfect example of how badly one cam miss the point made by the poster one's responding to.
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Actually, the checkpoint in question was one of a number of two-stage roadblocks which have been set up in Iraq. For various reasons, these roadblocks consist of a checkpoint manned by Iraqis who wave you through, and then just a little ways down the road another checkpoint manned by Americans. The driver in question mistakenly assumed that, because they'd been waved through by the Iraqi forces, it was OK to go, and accelerated back up to full speed after passing through. Result: car approaching the America
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
That sounds right, except for one thing:
This was the secure road from the largest US base in the country directly to the airport. The US ambassador just used it a half hour earlier.
What are the odds that IRAQI forces of ANY kind were allowed to man checkpoints on that road, given the unreliable nature of Iraqi forces?
I don't think so.
If it was, then that's more demonstration of US military incompetence. There's NO WAY you could justify using Iraqi forces on that road to man checkpoints - I don't care
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Moron.
They were not "zooming" and there was no checkpoint.
Read the story. The speed of the vehicle was no more than 40mph - on a SECURE road - and the "checkpoint" was an armored vehicle and some troops thirty feet off to the side of the road - a common enough sight in Iraq and one which does NOT indicate a "checkpoint".
Also, the Italian agent in charge had already rescued TWO OTHER hostages in Iraq - who had been critical of the US occupation. I'd say that was about as much experience as he needed - a
Re:Further correction (Score:1)
Re:Further correction (Score:2)
Bodies returned to Italy would be examined by a medical examiner - shots to the head would be a little obvious.
While it is not certain the intent was to assassinate Sgrena and the agents, it is highly likely that the idiots at the checkpoint were the same trigger-happy morons who have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi civilians and a number of foreign journalists due to their fear and incompetence.
And blaming this on fear of resistance attacks merely means that the US military is comprised of la