Quote:There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour
Here's the part I like; 3 to 4 hundred rounds, to stop the car. Did they open up with automatics on the thing?
What kind of roadblock WAS this?
Cycloptichorn
3 to 4 hundred rounds....hmmmmm, if that were true the vehicle would have been swiss cheese and anyone inside it too.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, during WWII American citizens of Japanese ancestry were not denied some of the most basic civil rights, most of them were interned, as I've read. When were they allowed to serve again?
I believe the internment affected only Japanese living on the Pacific coast in California. By the standards of the time, particularly compared to what was happening in Germany, Russia, France and the British posessions in the Mid East, the camps were quite comfortable and humane.
Throughout the war Japanese were permitted to volunteerr and serve in the armed forces, though most were assigned to the European theater. There were several mostly Japanese units in our Army fighting the Germans during the italian campaign, and they did very well.
The only remarkable thing is that some uninformed, uneducated, and totally biased people will believe anything negative theiy read about the current administration, the United States, and/or the military and will post it as absolute fact while calling those who were actually there liars, and then presume to malign the true experts who are much more likely to have a good grasp on what actually did happen.
And these same people will say they are true patriots, they love America, and they support the military.
I must be getting old.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour
Here's the part I like; 3 to 4 hundred rounds, to stop the car. Did they open up with automatics on the thing?
What kind of roadblock WAS this?
Cycloptichorn
Virtually all the individual and crew served weapons used by our army are fully automatic and have very high rates of fire. This has been the case for about the past 25 years. A few hundred rounds represents less than 20 seconds of fire by five or so soldiers - less still if a crew served weapon was used as is likely.
geogeob is only partially right. The Japanese Americans also fought in the Pacific theater as interpreters and in intelligence. As for his opinion about "comfortable and humane," he doesn't speak from knowledge or experience. In other words, he's full of shet.
georgeob1 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, during WWII American citizens of Japanese ancestry were not denied some of the most basic civil rights, most of them were interned, as I've read. When were they allowed to serve again?
I believe the internment affected only Japanese living on the Pacific coast in California. By the standards of the time, particularly compared to what was happening in Germany, Russia, France and the British posessions in the mid east, the camps were quite comfortable and humane.
That's exactly why I ask for it.
(Although I might imagine, c.i. and his family could have different ideas re. "humane and comfortable".)
Thanks.
Cicerone,
i said, "most were assigned to the European theater". That is a true statement, and I believe you know it.
Undesairable as they may have been the internment camps were a great improvement over those contemporaneously used by the Japanese, the Germans, the Russians, the French and the British (the latter mostly in their middle east and African posessions.).
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Cyclops, have you ever blamed a terrorist in your life? Any time the insurgency blows up a car, killing innocent women and children, you demand we explore the mind of the insurgent.
Of course it's the goddamn terrorist's fault in the first instance! You will be quick to assign blame to the United States, but that is keeping in character for you. You have done that consistently ... so is nothing new for you. Never consider the part the terrorist/insurgents had to play in this scenario.
What an idiotic couple of paragraphs.
When the terrorists kill people, it's their fault. When we kill people, it's our fault. The desire to know the mind of the terrorist is a desire to figure out how to
beat them, ya maroon. Know thy enemy; becuase the tactics we're using of 'demonize thy enemy' sure don't seem to be working well. Sheesh.
If some crooks here in America had kidnapped someone; and the Secret Service had liberated them from the kidnappers; and on the way out, there was confusion at a police checkpoint and the SS agent was shot,
whose fault would it be that he was shot? The kidnappers? Please!
Cycloptichorn
[Notice how I refrain from calling your response "idiotic." Take notes.
]
In answer to your question, yes, I suspect the kidnappers would be liable by operation of the
Felony Murder Rule.
Let me ask you this:
1. If someone point a gun at police, and the police shoot them, whose fault is it?
2. What if someone points a
toy gun at police, and the police shoot them. Whose fault?
3. If Person A talks Person B into robbing a bank, and in the process Person B and a hostage are shot by the police, who is at fault for Person B's death?
4. Who is at fault for the hostage's death?
In #1, the fault is with the person pointing the gun at police.
In #2, the fault is with the person pointing the toy gun at police.
In #3, the fault of Person B's death is on Person A.
In #4, the fault of the hostage's death is on Person A and B (but of course Person B is also dead).
The police would only be culpable if they acted recklessly or in violation of any established policies and procedures.
The terrorists were the proximate cause of the car speeding for the checkpoint. That much we know. We don't know to what degree the driver is at fault for failing to comply with repeated signals to slow down, etc. But we do know the fault is with the terrorists for creating the situation in the first place.
Since you admit you don't have any more facts about this situation than the rest of us, I'm sure you wouldn't want to make any assumptions or jump to any conclusions about culpability. Therefore, all we really do know at this stage is the culpability of the terrorists. Since you don't want to blame them, I don't know where that leaves you.
Why would there be spent casings in the car? That's not only impossible, but seriously stupid. Had those who fired upon her wanted her dead, she wouldn't be around now.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour
Here's the part I like; 3 to 4 hundred rounds, to stop the car. Did they open up with automatics on the thing?
What kind of roadblock WAS this?
Cycloptichorn
Here's the part I wonder about:
Quote:afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges.
How come only one of the people in the car was killed if in fact "car seats were covered in spent cartridges."
Also, the car was alleged to be less than 700m from the airport when it was fired upon. That's less than half a mile.
Airports in Iraq have been targets of the Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists regularly since the US removed Saddam's regime. Why is anyone surprised that a car travelling at highway speeds at night within a half mile of an airport would arouse intense suspicion?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour
Here's the part I like; 3 to 4 hundred rounds, to stop the car. Did they open up with automatics on the thing?
What kind of roadblock WAS this?
Cycloptichorn
Obviously the rounds were fired up into the air or she would be dead right now, considering these are armour piercing bullets... Also how many rounds need to be fired before they would stop? Maybe a few more hundred rounds might have prompted the driver to put his foot on the break?
I think the question is how did the casings get in the car, if in fact they were in the car, and that was not pure embellishment. Spent casings are ejected from the gun at the point of firing, and do not end up at the target. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Ticomaya wrote:I think the question is how did the casings get in the car, if in fact they were in the car, and that was not pure embellishment. Spent casings are ejected from the gun at the point of firing, and do not end up at the target. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right!
Exactly!
My thought was that if they were actually spent casings, then everyone in that car was sitting there with automatic weapons poking through the windows and spraying the interior with bullets and bullet casings. Under those circumstances one can't help but wonder how come all the occupants weren't shot to death. On the other hand if the seats were covered with spent bullets and not casings, I would still wonder how come all the occupants weren't shot to death.
"It doesn't compute."
ican711nm wrote:Why is anyone surprised that a car travelling at highway speeds at night within a half mile of an airport would arouse intense suspicion?
Where did you get this information, ican?
Good imagination, I suspect. LOL
That was my initial confusion; sorry if I didn't word it right.
I'm not sure how spent shell casings could get into a car that was fired on from a distance. Is this a transalation issue, or a question of what actually happened? It's hard to tell.
Quote:Obviously the rounds were fired up into the air or she would be dead right now, considering these are armour piercing bullets... Also how many rounds need to be fired before they would stop? Maybe a few more hundred rounds might have prompted the driver to put his foot on the break?
Apparently, the tendency in Iraq is to drive
faster when you are being shot at; presumably to get away from the danger.
Tico, there's no way of telling what did happen. But the reasoning you presented to me earlier is somewhat false, as this isn't a case of someone 'pointing a gun' at a cop as you put it; it's a f*ck-up somewhere along the line that people should be held responsible for.
Quote:1. If someone point a gun at police, and the police shoot them, whose fault is it?
2. What if someone points a toy gun at police, and the police shoot them. Whose fault?
3. If Person A talks Person B into robbing a bank, and in the process Person B and a hostage are shot by the police, who is at fault for Person B's death?
4. Who is at fault for the hostage's death?
In #1, the fault is with the person pointing the gun at police.
In #2, the fault is with the person pointing the toy gun at police.
In #3, the fault of Person B's death is on Person A.
In #4, the fault of the hostage's death is on Person A and B (but of course Person B is also dead).
I disagree with 3 and 4. It doesn't matter if I talk you into robbing a bank using persuasion; if you do it,
you are at fault, not the guy who talked you into doing it. To claim otherwise is to claim that people are not responsible for their actions, which I know you don't support.
As for #4, if a policeman shoots an innocent by mistake, without provocation, it is his fault. Period. True, the terrorist/robber set the situation up, but it's the policeman who pulls the trigger and is therefore culpable for his actions.
A review may suggest (in this case or the others) that the shooter was a victim of circumstances; i.e., even though someone pulled the trigger, there was a lot of confusion at the time and therefore there are special circumstances which mean the officer won't be blamed. This may be the case here as well.
But to say the terrorists are at fault is ludicrous. For example, using your logic, I could say that the terrorists are only there because
we invaded the country and decided to fight them there. No US presence -> no terrorists there -> no kidnapping -> no erroneous shootings. It's no more a stretch than you blaming the terrorists for an American shooting an Italian.
Cycloptichorn
Interesting article.
********
Bush Picks Critic of U.N. to Serve as Ambassador to It
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
Published: March 7, 2005
WASHINGTON, March 7 - President Bush is nominating Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced today.
The choice of Mr. Bolton, a blunt-spoken hawk with a history of unveiled skepticism toward the United Nations, appeared likely to raise concerns abroad.
But Ms. Rice, in introducing Mr. Bolton, offered him an unvarnished endorsement. "The president and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done," she said. "He is a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong record of success, and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism."
Mr. Bolton would succeed John C. Danforth, who resigned as the United Nations ambassador in January.
Ms. Rice credited Mr. Bolton, now undersecretary for arms control, with helping to build an international coalition to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction, helping to negotiate Libya's agreement to renounce such weapons, and serving as chief negotiator of the Treaty of Moscow, which called for sharp reductions of American and Russian nuclear warheads. He also worked with the first President George Bush as assistant secretary of state for international organizations.
Mr. Bolton, 56, is considered one of the administration's leading conservative hawks. He pressed the case for war with Iraq. And he has been witheringly critical of autocratic countries including North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba.
Some analysts saw Mr. Bolton, who has at times appeared outright disdainful of the United Nations, as an odd choice.
"Mr. Bolton is seen as among the most hawkish of President Bush's advisers, and as among those who are most sympathetic toward unilateral action, and perhaps least sympathetic toward a multilateral approach to things," said Robert Hathaway, director of Asia studies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington.
"Certainly, many people around the world will see this nomination as raising questions about the president's sincerity in wanting to work in a cooperative fashion, a multilateral fashion," he said.
Mr. Hathaway predicted the nomination would be seen as "disquieting" and "curious."
After a period in which the Bush administration has emphasized a desire for international cooperation, underscored by the president's trip to Europe, the nomination of Mr. Bolton appeared to show that hard-liners on foreign policy still carry clout in a clearly divided administration. Mr. Bolton has been championed in the past by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Mr. Bolton is widely quoted as having said at a panel discussion in 1994 that "if the U.N. secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." And in 1998 he dismissed a vote at the United Nations as irrelevant, saying, "this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system."
Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, who served as the United Nations ambassador under President Ronald Reagan, said in 2003 that Mr. Bolton "loves to tussle," adding, "He may do diplomatic jobs for the U.S. government, but John is not a diplomat."
His hard line, and blunt talk, on nuclear negotiations with North Korea - he has staunchly opposed concessions to Pyongyang unless it first rolls back its nuclear program - has roiled the Bush administration's already-difficult dealings with the government there.
In July 2003, as delicate six-party talks including North Korean were about to start, Mr. called Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, a "tyrannical dictator" of a country where "life is a hellish nightmare."
North Korea responded furiously, saying that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks" and that Pyongyang no longer considered Mr. Bolton to represent the administration. The State Department removed him from its delegation.
Mr. Hathaway of the Wilson Center said other parties to the Korean nuclear talks had at least privately challenged Mr. Bolton's confrontational approach. But he also noted that the United Nations, for now, "is not where the action is on the North Korea question."
Mr. Bolton also raised concerns when he was quoted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in early 2003 as saying that the United States, after defeating Iraq, would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea. And in June of that year he told the BBC that in the case of Iran, "all options are on the table."
In a 2002 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Bolton was asked about what seemed to be mixed signals from the Bush administration on North Korea. He grabbed a book from a shelf and laid it on the table. Its title: "The End of North Korea."
"That," he told the interviewer, "is our policy."
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:In #3, the fault of Person B's death is on Person A.
In #4, the fault of the hostage's death is on Person A and B (but of course Person B is also dead).
I disagree with 3 and 4. It doesn't matter if I talk you into robbing a bank using persuasion; if you do it,
you are at fault, not the guy who talked you into doing it. To claim otherwise is to claim that people are not responsible for their actions, which I know you don't support.
As for #4, if a policeman shoots an innocent by mistake, without provocation, it is his fault. Period. True, the terrorist/robber set the situation up, but it's the policeman who pulls the trigger and is therefore culpable for his actions.
Regarding #3, I agree that it doesn't matter that Person B was talked into robbing the bank. Whether they both decided to commit the robbery on their own, or if Person B talked Person A into robbing the bank, in either case, if during course of the robbery or the escape, Person B is shot and killed by the police,
Person A will be charged with first-degree murder for the homicide of Person B, even though he did not pull the trigger.
Same with #4 ... the robber/terrorist "set the situation up," and Person A will be properly charged with the murder of the innocent bystander.
Are you suggesting that in #4, the policeman should be charged with a crime?
When you disagree with me in this instance, you are disagreeing with the law. You may not agree with the law, but it is the law, notwithstanding your differing views concerning culpability.
Cycloptichorn wrote:A review may suggest (in this case or the others) that the shooter was a victim of circumstances; i.e., even though someone pulled the trigger, there was a lot of confusion at the time and therefore there are special circumstances which mean the officer won't be blamed. This may be the case here as well.
It remains to be seen. The culpability of the terrorists/kidnappers, however, is evident.
Cycloptichorn wrote:But to say the terrorists are at fault is ludicrous. For example, using your logic, I could say that the terrorists are only there because we invaded the country and decided to fight them there. No US presence -> no terrorists there -> no kidnapping -> no erroneous shootings. It's no more a stretch than you blaming the terrorists for an American shooting an Italian.
Cycloptichorn
There must be a causal connection to the incident. In this case, the proximate cause of the car speeding was the kidnapping of the Italian reporter and the escape from that situation. The terrorists are at fault, because but for their kidnapping the reporter, the car would not be hurrying to the airport in the manner it was.
old europe wrote:ican711nm wrote:Why is anyone surprised that a car travelling at highway speeds at night within a half mile of an airport would arouse intense suspicion?
Where did you get this information, ican?
From posts here earlier today. I cannot vouch for the validity of any of it, but I will look back for the location of the relevant posts.
It is alleged that the incident occurred at 8:55p.m..
It is alleged that the vehicle was traveling at a moderate speed on a highway (highway speeds?)
It is alleged that the checkpoint was about 700 meters (i.e., less than 0.435 miles) from the intended airport destination.
