Foxfyre wrote:So Geli, we can assume that you're with Walter and tend to beleive U.S. soldiers were just bored or distracted at that checkpoint and just decided to do some shooting? Or should they have held fire until the car was close enough to blow them up with it? No basis? Perhaps you or Walter would like to say how you know what the soldiers saw, what they were thinking, why they would shoot.
Of course if you believe they intentionally shot unarmed civilians, then that's what you believe. I don't understand that kind of thinking, but I know it exists. I see it posted often enough.
'WE ' can 'assume' .... says quite a bit now dosen't it. Whom may I ask is 'WE' .... and what is the basis for 'our' charges?
Has the wounded hostage said anything yet? That would be interesting to read.
She gave an interview in RaiNews24 this afternoon - some is already online.
The wounded cannot say what the solders saw or what the soldiers believed. You either believe it most probable that the solders told it like it was for them or you believe they intentionally shot unarmed civilians.
I am not going to believe our soldiers knowingly shot unarmed civilians. Is it possible there is a murderer among the armed forces? Of course? Is it so improbable to be considered impossible that all the soldiers at that checkpoint were murderers? Yes it is.
Of course the people in the car were angry. They didn't deserve to be shot. Their perspective is likely to be very different. But I believe the soldiers are telling it like it was.
Foxfyre wrote:
Of course the people in the car were angry.
All besides one - he was killed before he could get angry.
Until I have very good reason to believe differently, I am going to believe our U.S. soldiers are telling it like it was.
Fox, You are really stepping over the line of decency! You presume to know what everybody else thinks, and what the soldiers were thinking. As in any case in a homicide, if it could be called that in a war zone, it's up to the judge and jury to determine one's innocence or guilt. You seem to cover all bases.
Really C.I.? I am commenting on what people are saying here. I'm not drawing conclusions from anything that hasn't been said, like you just did.
If the soldiers are put on trial for stopping a car speeding toward a checkpoint, I will lose all faith in our leadership.
Until I have very good reason to believe differently, I am going to believe our U.S. soldiers are telling it like it was.
So sue me.
Foxfyre wrote:
"So Geli, we can assume that you're with Walter and tend to beleive U.S. soldiers were just bored or distracted at that checkpoint and just decided to do some shooting?"
And that was in response to Geli telling me I have no basis for my beliefs. You'll note it was phrased in the form of a question, an invitation to dispute it. He didn't. So sue me.
Fox, It's the other way around; you're dispute is with me, so sue me.
I have no dispute with you C.I. unless you too believe U.S. soldiers are going to intentionally shoot unarmed civilians at a checkpoint.
I do not believe such a thing until it's proven by others. I wouldn't presume to know the answer from 10,000 miles away.
Gelisgesti wrote:Foxfyre wrote:So Geli, we can assume that you're with Walter and tend to beleive U.S. soldiers were just bored or distracted at that checkpoint and just decided to do some shooting? Or should they have held fire until the car was close enough to blow them up with it? No basis? Perhaps you or Walter would like to say how you know what the soldiers saw, what they were thinking, why they would shoot.
Of course if you believe they intentionally shot unarmed civilians, then that's what you believe. I don't understand that kind of thinking, but I know it exists. I see it posted often enough.
'WE ' can 'assume' .... says quite a bit now dosen't it. Whom may I ask is 'WE' .... and what is the basis for 'our' charges?
Foxfyre wrote:And that was in response to Geli telling me I have no basis for my beliefs. You'll note it was phrased in the form of a question, an invitation to dispute it. He didn't. So sue me.
Sheesh, I could swear I answered ..... I even thought I asked anothr question
We are told it was "a checkpoint". It probably wasn't, because at a proper checkpoint (the kind you would mount in potentially hostile territory) a vehicle has no opportunity to speed through.
We are told "the troops fired at the engine block".
I don't believe that either, they were probably just frightened and confused boys at the end of their tether.
We were not told this is a common occurrence. We learn about it because of the dramatic and doubly unfortunate circumstance. I think it is probably a common occurrence.
In a war, **** happens. Shame on the warmongers. This is a small snapshot of a tiny incident in a whole sea of tragedy.
Geli states with no qualification
Quote:Fox seldom if ever has a basis for her charges ...... she 'imagins' quite a lot, or maybe you have noticed.
and then make gives no substantiation for a person insult and complains when I ask if he agrees with the implication or assumption that the soldiers acted improperly.
I have a problem with double standards applied depending on anybody's ideology.
And, I have a huge problem with people who condemn our soldiers first, either with false assumptions or by implication, when the soldiers were there and those accusing them or stating innuendo were not.
Foxfyre wrote:And, I have a huge problem with people who condemn our soldiers first, either with false assumptions or by implication, when the soldiers were there and those accusing them or stating innuendo were not.
Yes, US-soldiers always say the truth.
A teeny-weeny small aside: I just quoted media. This event happened 24 hours ago - and discussed since it became public about 20 hours ago ('broadly' since about 16 hours).
I admit that the "Italian voices" are naturally angry.
I'm glad, at least the official US-Americans are reacting more 'openly' than Foxfyre.
Foxfyre wrote:Geli states with no qualification
Quote:Fox seldom if ever has a basis for her charges ...... she 'imagins' quite a lot, or maybe you have noticed.
and then make gives no substantiation for a person insult and complains when I ask if he agrees with the implication or assumption that the soldiers acted improperly.
I have a problem with double standards applied depending on anybody's ideology.
And, I have a huge problem with people who condemn our soldiers first, either with false assumptions or by implication, when the soldiers were there and those accusing them or stating innuendo were not.
I'm glad I'm not one of those 'people who condemn our soldiers first'...I might be insulted.
This sound familiar?
'Note to Revel: I would imagine'
As McTag said, "in war, **** happens." None of us knows what any soldier is thinking or how they will react in different situations. When they see their buddies killed, their heads get all screwed up. That's the reason many return home with mental disorders.
Hostage recalls 'hail of gunfire'
Giuliana Sgrena is a veteran war correspondent
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena has described how she came under a "hail of gunfire" moments after being released from her Iraqi abductors in Baghdad.
"I was especially shocked because we thought that by then the danger was past," she told Italy's Rai radio.
Ms Sgrena, who was wounded in the incident, has been sent to a military hospital in Rome for an operation.
She denied US military accounts that the car was speeding past a checkpoint when it was fired upon.
US President George W Bush has pledged to fully investigate the shooting, in which a senior Italian security agent, Nicola Calipari, died.
Ms Sgrena was abducted on 4 February. It is unclear how she was released.
Some Italian press reports say a ransom was paid.
'Terrible thing'
Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, one of President Bush's staunchest allies, has demanded to know why US troops fired on the car carrying Ms Sgrena to safety.
"There was suddenly this shooting, we were hit by a hail of gunfire, and I was speaking with Nicola, who was telling me about what had been happening in Italy in the meantime, when he leaned towards me, probably also to protect me," Ms Sgrena told Rai radio.
There was suddenly this shooting, we were hit by a hail of gunfire
Giuliana Sgrena
"And then he collapsed and I realised that he was dead."
She said the shooting continued "because the driver wasn't even managing to explain that we were Italian".
"So, it was a really terrible thing."
Asked if the car was going too fast when the US troops opened fire, she said: "We weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation."
This is a serious diplomatic incident between the US and Italy, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome.
President Bush has telephoned Mr Berlusconi to offer his condolences and apologies.
He "assured Prime Minister Berlusconi that it would be fully investigated," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
No celebration
The prime minister and other dignitaries joined family members to welcome Ms Sgrena to Rome's Ciampino airport.
Walking slowly and with some help, a tired Ms Sgrena struggled to a waiting ambulance.
Her left-wing newspaper Il Manifesto says a peace rally will be held in Rome later on Saturday.
Ms Sgrena's colleagues cheered the initial news of her release
The death of one of Italy's most senior intelligence officers in the shooting cast a pall of gloom over what should have been a joyous occasion, says our Rome correspondent.
Mr Calipari is being portrayed as a national hero in Saturday's Italian press for his courage in saving Ms Sgrena's life.
A little-known militant group, Islamic Jihad Organisation, had said it kidnapped Giuliana Sgrena and demanded that Italy withdraw its troops from Iraq.
The same group said in September it had killed two Italian aid workers, Simona Torretta and Simona Pari - but they were later released by another organisation.
