0
   

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

 
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 05:51 pm
She has very skewed intentions and naivety beyond reason for someone who is an experienced war reporter.

This time her antics got someone killed, not directly but others were put in dangerous situations because of her stuborness and misguided trust torward the insurgants.

At the same time all involved knew the risks.

A lot of vehicles went through that checkpoint the same day without incident as far as I can find. They did something terribly wrong on their way to draw fire.

Rome is now admitting that it was an 'accidental' shooting, but that's just trying to save face for the supid stunt.

The US will let our allies save face in that way.

Investigations are ongoing but I doubt much is... because it's a pretty easily solved case.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:05 pm
I just read her "interview". (If someone else noticed this--excuse me--) But did you see that she said they practically lost control of the car??? They were swerving around??? No wonder the soldiers thought they were suspicious.

What idiots to think they wouldn't be fired on driving like that up to--and trying to pass--a checkpoint, swerving all over the road.

The wrong one was shot. She's a damn liar.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:39 pm
Lash wrote:
I just read her "interview". (If someone else noticed this--excuse me--) But did you see that she said they practically lost control of the car??? They were swerving around??? No wonder the soldiers thought they were suspicious.

What idiots to think they wouldn't be fired on driving like that up to--and trying to pass--a checkpoint, swerving all over the road.

The wrong one was shot. She's a damn liar.


She says in one of her accounts, "almost losing control".

Sgrena 'Truth'
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:53 pm
Nobody really cares about the theories Sgrena has to offer. I don't know why you people focus so much on that. Read:

Quote:
But the communications minister, Maurizio Gasparri, urged her to to show restraint: "I understand the emotion of these hours, but those who have been under stress in the past few weeks should pull themselves together and avoid talking nonsense."


Actually, it's the surviving Italian int officer who has been quoted a lot. Like here:

Quote:
However, according to the daily Corriere della Sera, the Italian intelligence officer who drove the car and who survived the attack insisted they were travelling at just 40 to 50 kilometres an hour (25 to 30 mph).

He was quoted as saying: "All of a sudden, a searchlight went on. Immediately afterwards, the shots began. The fire lasted for at least 10 seconds."


Even most Italians doubt what Sgrena has to tell about her being targeted. And many people say that paying ransoms is a very bad idea because more Italians will be kidnapped.

But what people are very, very upset about is:

HOW did it happen that an Italian civilian got shot by US soldiers?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:55 pm
Lash wrote:
The wrong one was shot. She's a damn liar.


Lash - do you want to have her shot?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:56 pm
I'll tell you.

Her car is driving irratically and speeding toward a checkpoint.

Sensible soldiers note it, and give all the warnings they are told to give.

They are ignored.

The car continues to approach, and does not heed directions to stop.

The soldiers follow the due process and begin firing.

They prefer to do this, rather than to get blown up.

What is it people don't understand?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:58 pm
Got a source, Lash?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:01 pm
Do I want to have her shot? No. Do I think the wrong one in that car was shot? Yes.

My source: common sense. It seems to have been right pretty often of late.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:05 pm
I don't understand why you people get so worked up over Sgrena and her theories, though.
Lash - what the Italians are outraged about is the fact that an Italian civilian was killed by US soldiers.

The other Italian officer who drove the car said they weren't goint too fast, they didn't see warning signs, they didn't hear warning shots.

They saw a flashlight, and shooting started almost at the same moment.

Nevermind Sgrena, Lash.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:10 pm
Quote:
Fini said the car was traveling at no more than 25 mph. He said a light was flashed at the car after a curve, and gunfire - lasting 10 or 15 seconds - started immediately afterward, disputing U.S. military claims that several attempts were made to stop the vehicle.

Italy's "reconstruction of the tragic event ... does not fully coincide with what has been communicated by U.S. authorities," said Fini. He added that the "sequence of acts carried out by the U.S. soldiers before the shooting" is one of the main discrepancies.

Fini said the hypothesis that the shooting was the result of an ambush, as suggested by Sgrena, is "groundless."
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:15 pm
If the car was traveling at no more than 25mph then they didn't need to dodge puddles therefor 'almost losing conrol', any car and tire can handle puddles at 25mph.

None of their stories add up to being very plausable.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:16 pm
OE, in any he said - she said argument, most people take one side or another. As simply no supportable facts in any way dispute the solders' version, there is one compelling additional fact that I think no thinking person can overlook.

The U.S. solders had lots of ammunition and a means to deliver it. One person was killed; one wounded. If they intended to kill anybody, every occupant in that car would be dead and there would be nobody telling 'the other side'.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:18 pm
Yeah. That's the point.

She contradicts her OWN story, and his.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:19 pm
Brand X wrote:
If the car was traveling at no more than 25mph then they didn't need to dodge puddles therefor 'almost losing conrol', any car and tire can handle puddles at 25mph.

None of their stories add up to being very plausable.


Brandy, you are again citing Sgrena's interview, not the official findings, right? Nevermind, just a lapse in your logic. Oh, and I think she said

Quote:
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell.


No 'almost losing control' at the checkpoint, as far as I can see. But I don't give much about her version, anyway.

edited to correct
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
OE, in any he said - she said argument, most people take one side or another. As simply no supportable facts in any way dispute the solders' version, there is one compelling additional fact that I think no thinking person can overlook.

The U.S. solders had lots of ammunition and a means to deliver it. One person was killed; one wounded. If they intended to kill anybody, every occupant in that car would be dead and there would be nobody telling 'the other side'.


Fox, I don't know what the soldiers had to say. I know there's an "official version" by the military, but I think there has been no report on the soldiers' version, so far.

I'd like to hear one, though.

And, again: I don't buy the story that "the soldiers wanted to kill her". Forget it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:34 pm
Part of the problem, and I know it sounds fishy to anybody who hasn't been in this kind of situation in the military, but the car bombs pose the greatest threat our people are facing over there right now. They have to keep the terrorists off balance at all times, so they can't publicly explain all the criteria they use when they are setting up and defending a checkpoint. Certainly they can't give a statement to the press, especially a mostly hostle press.

In vulnerable areas like the airport, impromptu checkpoints are not all unusual but all are known to command. Had the Italians coordinated movement with command as they were supposed to do, there would have been no problem.

As we are regularly court marshalling and convicting service personnel who are charged with wrong doing, there is no reason to believe the investigation into this matter won't be thorough and handled appropriately.

Command has issued a statement as to what happened and that has been published and reported extensively over here. Our version of the story has been consistent and unwavering and is entirely plausible. I have no reason to disbelieve it.

The Italian woman is giving us plenty of reason to doubt her version, however.

(Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been in the military. I do have lots of friends and family who have been and are however.)

Mostly in this matter I'm paying the closest attention to GeorgeOB1. He's got the background, credentials, and expertise to know.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:34 pm
This is really long but totally thought-provoking. Please read it and tell me what you think.



March 9, 2005
DOW JONES REPRINTS

Family Matters
Iraqi Shiite Women
Push Islamic Law
On Gender Roles

Powerful Female Politicians
Seek to Scale Back Rights;
Divorce, Alimony at Issue
'Don't Defy God's Orders'
By FARNAZ FASSIHI
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 9, 2005; Page A1

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Over the past two years, Fatima Yaqoub has gone from sewing dresses at home to shaping municipal policies as a councilwoman in Kathamiya, a bustling district in Iraq's capital.

Ms. Yaqoub has organized computer courses for women and traveled to Egypt for a U.S.-funded course on constitutional and human-rights law. During the Iraqi elections in January, she supervised a polling station and oversaw the counting of the ballots.

In many ways, Ms. Yaqoub, 40 years old, is emblematic of the kind of gender equality the U.S. and many Iraqis envision for the new Iraq. But the devout Shiite Muslim is part of a group of increasingly powerful female politicians seeking to erase laws that provide women with some of the same rights as men.

She favors allowing Iraqi men to have as many as four wives and repealing laws that guarantee alimony payments and child-custody rights for women in divorces. Ms. Yaqoub also believes in decreasing the amount of money women stand to gain in inheritances and removing legal barriers to the marriage of girls younger than 18 years old.


Ms. Yaqoub is in the vanguard of a major push by Iraq's Shiite religious and political leaders to introduce aspects of Islamic "Sharia" law into Iraq's legal code, especially where it concerns family matters and women's rights. Sharia is Islam's version of divine law, drawn from the Koran and other religious texts.

In Iraq's recent election, Shiite candidates won by a landslide and secured a little more than half of the 275 seats in the national assembly. When the new government meets for the first time later this month, its most immediate task will be to draft a new constitution and pave the way for a new round of elections by this December.

Islam's Place

What role Islam plays in Iraq's new constitution is one of the most explosive issues facing the country's newly elected legislators. Leaders of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shiite political parties, say they are determined to make permanent constitutional changes to Iraqi laws governing such things as marriage and divorce.

But many Iraqis, including secular Sunni Muslims whose participation in the government is considered key, are uncomfortable with a formal religious component to the government. Ethnic Kurds, who govern the northern part of Iraq with relative autonomy, may decide to ignore any religious-based laws the central government passes, say Iraqi political analysts.

The Bush administration also wants Iraq to remain a secular democracy. When Shiite leaders tried to introduce changes based on Islamic Sharia law last year, the effort was dropped after former U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer threatened a veto.

Now that Iraq is sovereign, the U.S. no longer has direct say over domestic matters. But a senior American official in Baghdad said the introduction of Sharia law in the constitution could raise red flags. "There is a vision of where we want Iraq to be that would make sense in terms of the resources we've put into this place and our overarching goal for democracy," said the official.

Ms. Yaqoub and other women like her refer to themselves as the "Zeinab Sisters," a name given to devout Muslim women who follow the path of the Prophet Mohammad's daughter, Fatima.

Leading the Islamist sisterhood and serving as a role model for women like Ms. Yaqoub is a 46-year-old dentist-turned politician named Salama al-Khafaji. A member of the United Iraqi Alliance, Ms. Khafaji is a popular legislator whose 17-year-old son was killed by insurgents during an attempt to assassinate her in 2003.

"Iraqi society is tribal, Islamic and very conservative," says Ms. Khafaji, sitting behind a large wooden desk in her Baghdad office and wearing a black abbaya, the traditional cloth garment that conceals all but the face, hands and feet. "Most people don't feel ownership to the existing secular family law, and we must change it to follow Sharia. Forcing secularism on our society is also a form of dictatorship."

Professional, educated women like Ms. Yaqoub and Ms. Khafaji make up about one-third of the candidates on the United Iraqi Alliance slate that swept the elections with the backing of Shiite religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. They hold ministerial positions and sit on local and provincial councils and act as policy makers. And they are proving to be especially effective at promoting conservative religious agendas for the simple reason that they are women, say critics.

"It's very difficult to fight this when their women politicians are advocating Sharia. The men say, 'See, you are wrong because even these women are supporting us,' " says Narmeen Othman, a Sunni Kurd who is Iraq's minister of women's affairs and a longtime champion of women's rights in Iraq.

Sharia law varies widely across Muslim countries, depending on the interpretation of Islamic jurists. In Saudi Arabia, where the Sunni population follows the ultraconservative Wahabi sect, Sharia calls for public executions and stoning women who have committed adultery.

Conservative Shiites in Iraq say they don't want an Islamist theocracy like the clerical regime next door in Iran, but they have been making a determined push to expand the sphere of religious influence in Iraq. And they've made family law the centerpiece of their efforts. The laws affect how Iraqis marry, divorce, inherit wealth, settle child-custody disputes and how courts view women's rights. "Our position on the family status law is non-negotiable. It will be based on Sharia," says Sheikh Kashef al Ghatta, an influential Shiite politician expected to win a seat on the committee that will draft the new constitution.

The new government is expected to draw up a revised constitution by October, when Iraqis will vote in a national referendum. If two-thirds of people in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces vote against it, the constitution will be void.

Although political negotiations haven't begun in earnest yet, Shiite politicians are already seeking ways to damp opposition to changing family laws. Some political analysts say the Kurds may look the other way if the constitution guarantees them continued autonomy. Shiites also have said they would support exemptions for religious minorities such as Christians.

If they succeed, Iraq's religious parties could wind up reversing one of the region's longest-standing westernized legal traditions. Iraq first introduced its secular family status law in 1959, shortly after the republic was first established. Iraqi law does allow men to marry more than once -- former dictator Saddam Hussein still has three wives -- but only under very specific conditions, such as when one wife is unable to have children. Under the current law, child custody is automatically given to mothers but under Sharia would go to the father's family. Under Sharia a husband can prohibit his wife from leaving the country alone.

Conservative Shiites want to replace the current laws "with a vague religious code to be subjectively applied by a religious court or a judge," says Mishkat al-Moumin, the Sunni minister of environment and a constitutional lawyer by training. "This is unacceptable. We will lose every thing we have gained in terms of women's rights."

Shiite leaders such as Ibrahim Jaafari, who is now poised to be named prime minister, say they support the implementation of Sharia into family law. In a recent interview at his home in Baghdad, Dr. Jaafari said he saw no conflict between Sharia and women's rights.

Ms. Yaqoub also sees no contradiction between her recent political empowerment and the Islamist agenda she supports. She grew up in the Shiite district of Kathamiya, a busy neighborhood whose golden-domed mosque attracts worshipers from across Iraq. Her father, a water-tank repairman who fathered nine children with two wives, taught Ms. Yaqoub how to pray and recite short verses of the Koran from a young age. When she turned 9, he instructed her to cover her hair.

Religion provided structure to her life. Every summer, Ms. Yaqoub's family trekked to Karbala, a holy city for Shiites, where she helped prepare big pots of rice and lentil stew for other pilgrims. She says her father didn't want her to attend a co-educational university, so after high school she began making money by sewing dresses for neighborhood women. But unlike most Iraqi women of her generation she decided not to get married. "I had suitors but I didn't like any of them," says Ms. Yaqoub.

In the chaos that followed Baghdad's fall to U.S. forces two years ago, mosques suddenly became the only viable authority in many places, organizing charity drives, health care and neighborhood patrols. Ms. Yaqoub says she volunteered to help her mosque's religious leader, Imam Mohammad Baqir, in any way she could. Several months later, when neighborhood councils began to spring up under the guidance of the U.S. military's civil-affairs units, she says Mr. Baqir took her aside and told her the mosque wanted to nominate her. The imam said she would make a good role model for other women, Ms. Yaqoub recalls.

With the backing of the local Shiite clerics, Ms. Yaqoub advanced quickly. Soon after joining the neighborhood council she was appointed to a council overseeing affairs for the district, even serving as its president for a three-month period. Together with other council leaders she appointed Baghdad's mayor and governor.

Last August, Ms. Yaqoub also was selected as a member of the U.S.-backed interim national assembly, where she says she worked to improve women's rights "within the framework of Islam." Ms. Yaqoub formed a local social-affairs committee that escorts widows and divorced women to the courts and government offices, helping them fill out forms and claim benefits. She also began attending religious classes funded by the Ayatollah Sistani. The free classes, run by the Ayatollah's representatives, are designed to train conservative wives, mothers and teachers. Enrollment has more than tripled each semester, according to school officials.

At the Waezia school in Khathemiya, about 50 or so women clad in black recently sat on a floral carpet and listened to Sheikh Ghatta give lessons on the interpretation of Islamic texts and verses from the Koran. When the lesson turned to Sharia, the women vehemently defended religious law and argued that Shiite politicians would lose their support if they failed to implement the basics of Sharia into the constitution. "We voted for them to stay with Islam and keep our country according to Islamic values," said Samira Rezaq Karim, a 47-year-old student. "Otherwise we would vote for another list."

These days, Ms. Yaqoub carries out her work at great personal risk. Insurgents are systematically targeting people who work with the U.S. or the Iraqi government, and Ms. Yaqoub has received death and kidnapping threats. Her family's home, where she lives with her mother and brother's family, was attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade.

One day last month, Ms. Yaqoub sat at table with 30 or so other district council members discussing fuel shortages, sewage problems and garbage pickups. She proposed they should find a way to bring subsidized fuel to the poor in the neighborhood.

After the meeting, Ms. Yaqoub said that she often counsels women who are having family problems. One young woman who recently came to her was distraught because her husband planned to take a second wife. Ms. Yaqoub said she offered the woman a lesson that she had learned at the theological school. "I told her that our country has had three wars and there are not enough men for every woman to marry. So she should not be so selfish and share her husband like a good Muslim wife," Ms. Yaqoub explained. "I reminded her that God had allowed our men to take more than one wife and you don't defy God's orders."

Write to Farnaz Fassihi at [email protected]


Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:54 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Part of the problem, and I know it sounds fishy to anybody who hasn't been in this kind of situation in the military, but the car bombs pose the greatest threat our people are facing over there right now.


I agree with you, though.

Foxfyre wrote:
They have to keep the terrorists off balance at all times, so they can't publicly explain all the criteria they use when they are setting up and defending a checkpoint.


Weeeell.... but don't they keep civilians off balance at all times, too? Wouldn't that explain a lot?

Foxfyre wrote:
Certainly they can't give a statement to the press, especially a mostly hostle press.


Don't understand. I don't want to know how they run their 'secret' operations. I want to know what happened.


Foxfyre wrote:
In vulnerable areas like the airport, impromptu checkpoints are not all unusual but all are known to command. Had the Italians coordinated movement with command as they were supposed to do, there would have been no problem.


Italians said they did. Actually, the White House said there might have been a communications problem. Don't know, but couldn't that have been within the military, too?

Foxfyre wrote:
As we are regularly court marshalling and convicting service personnel who are charged with wrong doing, there is no reason to believe the investigation into this matter won't be thorough and handled appropriately.


See, that's the point I doubt. No reason to speculate, though. We will see.

Foxfyre wrote:
Command has issued a statement as to what happened and that has been published and reported extensively over here. Our version of the story has been consistent and unwavering and is entirely plausible.


So has been the Italian version.

Foxfyre wrote:
I have no reason to disbelieve it.


So have I.

Foxfyre wrote:
The Italian woman is giving us plenty of reason to doubt her version, however.


Exactly. She paranoid <snicker>


Foxfyre wrote:
(Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been in the military. I do have lots of friends and family who have been and are however.)


(I was about to ask..! Neither have I. I have been to interesting regions, though. But not with the military.)

Foxfyre wrote:
Mostly in this matter I'm paying the closest attention to GeorgeOB1. He's got the background, credentials, and expertise to know.


To know about the military, that is. Or might be. Don't know him personally. Nevertheless - the incident is what many people are concerned about.
Some are f*cking outraged. Some.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 08:03 pm
old europe wrote:
Brand X wrote:
If the car was traveling at no more than 25mph then they didn't need to dodge puddles therefor 'almost losing conrol', any car and tire can handle puddles at 25mph.

None of their stories add up to being very plausable.


Brandy, you are again citing Sgrena's interview, not the official findings, right? Nevermind, just a lapse in your logic. Oh, and I think she said

Quote:
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell.


No 'almost losing control' at the checkpoint, as far as I can see. But I don't give much about her version, anyway.

edited to correct


All that is moot any way as they did something to draw fire, hopefully we'll find out exactly what that something was. In the mean time her story gets a lot of credence eventhough she contradicts herself over and over.

I sounds like they got caught up in the thrill and joy of her escape and in that... failed to yield to the rules of the checkpoint.

Previous vehicles that day passed through without gun fire.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 08:14 pm
Brand X wrote:
All that is moot any way as they did something to draw fire, hopefully we'll find out exactly what that something was. In the mean time her story gets a lot of credence eventhough she contradicts herself over and over.

I sounds like they got caught up in the thrill and joy of her escape and in that... failed to yield to the rules of the checkpoint.

Previous vehicles that day passed through without gun fire.



Hey, Brandy, do you have a clue what you are talking about, or not?


"In the mean time her story gets a lot of credence"

Quote:
Fini said the hypothesis that the shooting was the result of an ambush, as suggested by Sgrena, is "groundless."


Quote:
Maurizio Gasparri urged her to to show restraint: "I understand the emotion of these hours, but those who have been under stress in the past few weeks should pull themselves together and avoid talking nonsense."


Uh, Gasparri and Fini are Italian ministers, btw.
"lot of credence"
sure


"I sounds like they got caught up in the thrill and joy of her escape and in that... failed to yield to the rules of the checkpoint."

Guess what? She wasn't driving. And the Italian officers? Yeah, thrilled as hell, I'd say!


" they did something to draw fire"

See, that's still the question. ' have proof for that?
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 0.13 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 09:00:01