0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 04:28 pm
This still is the only official (press) text:

Quote:
Baghdad, Iraq -- At approximately 8:55 p.m. on March 4, Coalition Forces assigned to the Multi-National Force-Iraq fired on a vehicle that was approaching a Coalition checkpoint in Baghdad at a high rate of speed. The recently freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was an occupant in the vehicle and was apparently injured. It appears a second person in the automobile was killed. Ms. Sgrena is being treated by Coalition Force medical personnel. The incident is under investigation and additional details will be provided when they become available.


Release #050304h
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 04:46 pm
Cyclo,

You present truly profound levels of ignorance and prejudgement in relation to this problem.

Spent cartridges in the car probably suggest someone in the car was shooting out of it - the only alternative is to suppose someone outside stuck a weapon in the window and fired.

On what basis do you claim to know the natural tendency in Iraq for drivers when challenged bt soldiers at a checkpoint? The natural presumption is that the soldiers fired because the vehicle did not stop in response to their commands. I suspect that in such circumstances almost all vehicles come to a quick stop.

Experience is indeed a useful thing in interpreting imperfectly reported events. You have amply demonstrated the hazards of the lack of it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 04:53 pm
I got this via my own search. I'm still looking for the reference to "700 meter from the airport."

boldface emphasis added by me

Quote:
Top Stories - washingtonpost.com
Shootings by U.S. at Iraq Checkpoints Questioned
Mon Mar 7, 9:13 AM ET Top Stories - washingtonpost.com
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post Staff Writers
...
But the circumstances of Friday's shooting of Italian military intelligence officer Nicola Calipari made it particularly vulnerable to calamity, a military source said as he divulged new details of how the car in which Calipari and a newly freed hostage, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, came to be attacked.

The automobile was traversing onto a route -- the road to the airport -- where soldiers have been killed in shootings and by roadside bombs. U.S. soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew a high-level embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road, and their aim was to support this movement.

But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena's rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the source, who said he cannot be named because the military's investigation into the incident is continuing.

Soldiers at the checkpoint have told U.S. military officers that they flashed lights, used hand signals and fired warning shots in an effort to stop the car, which they believed was traveling at more than 50 mph, a typical speed for that road. But Sgrena, who had just been released by Iraqi captors, recalled later that the car was not traveling very fast and that soldiers started firing "right after lighting" a spotlight -- a decision she said was not justified. Sgrena was wounded by shrapnel in the U.S. barrage.

The absence of advance communication between the Italians and the U.S. soldiers at the checkpoint appears to have put the occupants of the car in grave jeopardy, given what many U.S. officials describe as the military's standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in Iraq.

"In my view, the main contributing factor was a lack of prior coordination with the ground unit," the source said. "If requested, we would have resourced and supported this mission very differently." ...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:02 pm
Quote:
Soldiers at the checkpoint have told U.S. military officers that they flashed lights, used hand signals and fired warning shots in an effort to stop the car, which they believed was traveling at more than 50 mph, a typical speed for that road. But Sgrena, who had just been released by Iraqi captors, recalled later that the car was not traveling very fast and that soldiers started firing "right after lighting" a spotlight -- a decision she said was not justified. Sgrena was wounded by shrapnel in the U.S. barrage.


No boldface emphasis.

So the soldiers say "they believed .. more than 50 mph".
Sgrena says they were "not travelling very fast".
Soldiers say they "flashed lights, used hand signals, fired warning shots".
Sgrena says they "started firing 'right after lighting' a spotlight".
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:04 pm
60 mph = one mile in one minute. Say that the troops spotted the Itilian vehicle one mile away and waved thier hands for fifteen seconds ..... the vehicle cloes to 3/4 of amile. Then the troops flashd lights for 15 minutees ..... the vehicle is now 1/2 mile away. Troops fired warning shots for 15 seconds .... the vehicle is now 1/4 mile away.... the troops open fire at the engine block ..... tthat iswhat you call cutting it close. If it took the toops 15 seconds to get set up..... they would be firing at the trunk.
What did tth Italians hope to gain by running the blockade?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:19 pm
Here's the source of my reference to "700 meters from the airport."
page 816
McTag: Monday 3/7/2005 3:11 pm post no. 1209604

size and boldface emphasis added by me

McTag wrote:
From "The Independent" today:

As Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, telephoned his Italian counterpart, Antonio Martino, to express regret for the killing, Italian government ministers and opposition politicians denounced the shooting. Gianni Alemanno, the Minister for Agriculture, said: "We need to see the guilty punished and an apology from the Americans. We are trustworthy allies but we must not give the impression of being subordinates."

Romano Prodi, the opposition leader, said: "What is required is a precise analysis of the events, beginning with the testimony of the American unit that fired."

Mr Berlusconi has long competed with Tony Blair for the title of most loyal ally of America, but now he is struggling to contain a rising tide of anti-Americanism which poses the critical question: if Italy, with the third biggest military contingent in Iraq after Britain's, is the esteemed ally that Berlusconi claims it to be, why should US soldiers fire on the car taking the released hostage to Baghdad airport - and then seek to palm Italy off with an obviously mendacious explanation?

Edward Luttwak, an American military commentator interviewed yesterday in La Repubblica, said Mr Calipari's death was "the sort of thing that happens all the time in a war", and he advised Italy to "take an aspirin and go to bed, you'll feel better in the morning". But for many Italians the secret agent's death exposed a gulf of mistrust and loathing.

The story began early on Friday afternoon when Mr Calipari and his team of military intelligence agents arrived in Baghdad from Abu Dhabi. After weeks of haggling, the ransom for Ms Sgrena had finally been agreed: at least $6m (£3.1m), according to the Italian press, and perhaps as much as $8m, had been handed over. The time and place for the release was settled.

Italy is well aware that its habit of paying large sums to secure the release of its nationals is disapproved of by the Americans and British. All negotiations are therefore carried on in secret. But at Baghdad airport Mr Calipari explained at the US headquarters what his team had come to do. It was arranged that an American colonel would be on hand at the airport when Ms Sgrena arrived for her flight back to Italy. By the time the team had rented a four-wheel drive it was already 5pm.

At 8.20pm, Mr Calipari's team reached the rendezvous on the outskirts of Baghdad. The vehicle they were looking for was there. Ms Sgrena's abductors had left her blindfolded in the back of the car. "I'm a friend of Pier and Gabriele," Mr Calipari said, naming Ms Sgrena's partner and editor. The 57-year-old journalist was a bundle of tension as they got her into their vehicle and left for the airport.

By now it was dark and pouring with rain. Baghdad is far too dangerous for people to go out after dark without excellent reason, and all scheduled flights had left. But the Italians decided that, with their plane waiting on the Tarmac, it was better to get Ms Sgrena home without delay.

They passed two American checkpoints along the airport road without incident and were 700 metres or so from the airport building. The road narrowed to a single, one-way lane and took a 90-degree turn. The car was going slowly now, approaching the end of the journey.

"At last I felt safe," Ms Sgrena said. "We had nearly arrived in an area under American control, an area more or less friendly, even if it was still unsettled."

Then, turning the corner, they found their progress baulked by an American tank. They were blinded by a powerful light. "Without any warning, any signal, we were bombarded with a shower of bullets," Ms Sgrena said. "The tank was firing on us, our car was riddled with bullets. Nicola tried to protect me, then his body slumped on top of mine, I heard his death rattle, then I felt a pain but I couldn't tell where I had been hit. Those who had fired came up to the car, but before I was taken to the American hospital there was an interminable wait, it's hard to know how long I was lying there wounded but perhaps it was 20 minutes."

Was Ms Sgrena, correspondent of the communist daily Il Manifesto, who has repeatedly demanded an end to the occupation, the true target? She couldn't rule it out, she said. "Everybody knows that the Americans are opposed to hostage negotiations. So I don't see why we must exclude the possibility that I was their target. The Americans don't approve, and so they try to frustrate the negotiations every way they can."

Ms Sgrena, who is recovering in hospital, added that she did not intend to go back to Iraq because "the conditions don't exist for getting information". Her abductors, she said, "don't want witnesses, and they regard all of us as possible spies".

CONFLICTING VERSIONS

There are some glaring discrepancies in the Italian and American versions of the killing of the agent Nicola Calipari and the wounding of released hostage Giuliana Sgrena and two other Italian secret service agents:

The Americans say: the car was travelling at high speed
The Italians say: it was travelling at 40-50kph

US: It approached a checkpoint near the airport at speed when soldiers fired on it to force it to stop as a "last resort"
Italy: It had passed three checkpoints without incident and was 700 metres from the airport when fired upon

US: The soldiers used hand signals and bright lights and fired warning shots before hitting the car with shots
Italy: 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

US: There was a lack of co-ordination between the Italians and the Americans
Italy: The Americans were kept fully informed

US: It was a regrettable accident which will be aggressively investigated
Italy: Ms Sgrena claims it was a deliberate ambush to kill her, as the Italians had paid a ransom, a practice America opposes, and as she had learnt inconvenient facts from her abductors.


7 March 2005 21:13
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:23 pm
Quote:
They passed two American checkpoints along the airport road without incident and were 700 metres or so from the airport building. The road narrowed to a single, one-way lane and took a 90-degree turn. The car was going slowly now, approaching the end of the journey.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:24 pm
So, what do we learn, ican?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:29 pm
Someone shoots at your car, and hits it.
What do you do....stop, so as to make it easier for them, or drive on faster?

I would probably drive on, as in the example quoted yesterday, especially if I did not know who was shooting.

But, an army checkpoint should be arranged like a road block so that vehicles cannot drive through at normal speeds. The Italians said this one was more like an ambush.

If the Italians knew it was Americans shooting, who wanted them to stop, why wouldn't they? They would stop, it stands to reason.
So, all the facts about this are not known yet. Not much of this rings true....not all of the Italian version, and not much about the official army version either.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:32 pm
old europe wrote:

So the soldiers say "they believed .. more than 50 mph".
Sgrena says they were "not travelling very fast".
Soldiers say they "flashed lights, used hand signals, fired warning shots".
Sgrena says they "started firing 'right after lighting' a spotlight".

Do you understand that all four of these statements can be true without any mutual contradiction whatsoever?

More than 50 mph is not necessarily traveling very fast.
Flashed lights are not necessarily equivalent to lighting a spotlight.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:32 pm
The fact is: "...all the facts about this are not known yet." Keep expending your energies folks, I'm enjoying the reads. Almost like 12 angry men.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:36 pm
:wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:44 pm
old europe wrote:
So, what do we learn, ican?


You learn from this where I got my information! That's what you asked for and that's what I gave you.

As I've already said, I cannot validate any of that information.

So, in answer to your question "what do we learn (note:present tense)?"

My most accurate answer is:

Beats the hell outa me!

We already knew that highway the Italians were on was a very dangerous place to be at 8:55 pm, and consequently they would have shown a modicum of intelligence if they had communicated ahead of time with US command to alert US comand to the time of their intended journey to the airport.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:49 pm
Quote:
US: There was a lack of co-ordination between the Italians and the Americans
Italy: The Americans were kept fully informed
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:53 pm
Quote:
The death of `Adil `Abd al-Karim al-Kawwaz is a case in point. On August 7, al-Kawwaz was driving home from his in-law's house in Baghdad with his wife and four children just prior to the evening curfew. It was dark and he did not see the U.S. soldiers from the 1st Armored Division operating a checkpoint with armored vehicles and heavy-caliber guns. No signs or lights indicating their presence were visible, and al-Kawwaz did not understand he was supposed to stop. He drove too close and the soldiers opened fire, killing him and three of his children, the youngest of whom was eight years old.

This shooting was not an isolated event. At checkpoints, during raids, or after roadside attacks, edgy U.S. soldiers have resorted to lethal force with distressing speed. Troops also have not been adequately equipped with non-lethal or less lethal equipment, such as tear gas and rubber bullets, for use in establishing control of a situation without recourse to live fire. When they have reason to use lethal force, soldiers sometimes respond in an excessive and indiscriminate way that put civilians at risk.


source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 05:53 pm
old europe, Maybe they were trying to filter that information through our intelligence agencies, and it got misinterpreted, exaggerated or delayed.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 06:00 pm
Could be, ci, could be! Would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 06:11 pm
... took me some time to find this one... Forgot the name of the guy: Darrell Anderson.

Quote:
Anderson was with a group of soldiers helping to defend an Iraqi police station that was under fire. Suddenly, a car swerved into the area, refusing to stop. Soldiers are expected to open fire when that happens where any stranger is a potential enemy and any vehicle might contain a bomb. But Anderson never pulled the trigger of his M-16.

"This car kept coming, and the other guys were yelling, 'Why don't you shoot, why don't you shoot?' But I felt the car posed no threat. Then, the window of the car rolled down, and it was just an Iraqi family," Anderson said. "I said, 'Look it's just innocent people.' But they kept telling me, 'The next time, you open fire. We don't care."'


You can probably find it elsewhere, too....
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 06:19 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cyclo,

You present truly profound levels of ignorance and prejudgement in relation to this problem.

Spent cartridges in the car probably suggest someone in the car was shooting out of it - the only alternative is to suppose someone outside stuck a weapon in the window and fired.

On what basis do you claim to know the natural tendency in Iraq for drivers when challenged bt soldiers at a checkpoint? The natural presumption is that the soldiers fired because the vehicle did not stop in response to their commands. I suspect that in such circumstances almost all vehicles come to a quick stop.

Experience is indeed a useful thing in interpreting imperfectly reported events. You have amply demonstrated the hazards of the lack of it.



Perhaps that if the vehicle was close enough that a soldiers spent rounds ended up in the cab of the vehicle that only testifies on how close the vehicle came to the actual check point before it did come to a stop.

I would think that a rocket launcher might have been more effective... If these were bullets from a US soldiers weapon then the vehicle was so close that it was within distance to, had it been a car bomb, have killed many of the Americans in the near vicinity of the checkpoint.

I can envision a soldier shooting at the engine block as the vehicle sped up. So a bullet through the windshield may have inadvertently caught the driver, or a sniper...

A reason why the rounds are in the cab is windows may have been blown out when the soldier/sniper shot at the approaching car engine block.

Bullet spray may have hit the car glass or the windows just may have been rolled down. But as the car came in the soldier/s at the checkpoint quickly approached the car and shot into the engine block from beside/behind it as the car sped in. The spent shells flew out of the gun in through the passenger/back seat windows... just a guess. The soldier may have started by shooting a warning into the air before the vehicle was even in range. Who knows?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 06:37 pm
old europe wrote:
Quote:
Soldiers at the checkpoint have told U.S. military officers that they flashed lights, used hand signals and fired warning shots in an effort to stop the car, which they believed was traveling at more than 50 mph, a typical speed for that road. But Sgrena, who had just been released by Iraqi captors, recalled later that the car was not traveling very fast and that soldiers started firing "right after lighting" a spotlight -- a decision she said was not justified. Sgrena was wounded by shrapnel in the U.S. barrage.


No boldface emphasis.

So the soldiers say "they believed .. more than 50 mph".
Sgrena says they were "not travelling very fast".
Soldiers say they "flashed lights, used hand signals, fired warning shots".
Sgrena says they "started firing 'right after lighting' a spotlight".



This doesn't jive. Sgrena says, they were going slow. Yet, the Americans did not have time to fire warning shots? They just started firing after the lights? What could possibly be the motive? Was that when they were a mile down the street.

Like I said, they just could have used a rocket launcher? Why didn't they finish the operation if the orders were to kill on sight? Because they did not actually kill her only attests to the fact that there were no such orders and Sgrena is lying... She would have never lived to tell her fictitious conjure of slurs and slander. Something is rotten in Italy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 01:25:13