The Iraq thread 4

[sanctuary 19]

Oh, and sanctuary, I'm one of those brainwashed soldiers-Watch yer mouth, show some respect.

why should i in regards of such events ?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I still have a question that sits in my brain now for months..

Where were the terorist attacks during the era of Saddam Hussein?

We all know that suicide terorists do not fear death .. but did they maybe fear being tortured by the Bathists!

Did they need the confusion of the war to be able to organise themselves in the first place?

Where is this willing of resistance coming from, it hasnt been there in the past, at least it didnt show!

Sounds like a stupid question, maybe is, but it still makes me wonder.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Well said Denoir. I'm glad someone else sees this incident as an accident and nothing more.

-BreakerOut

Oh, and sanctuary, I'm one of those brainwashed soldiers-Watch yer mouth, show some respect.

well it was a failure! That must be the first point one needs to accept when discussing the issue. Something went wrong! As long as the american administration takes this as the basis of their investigation I am fine!

Quote[/b] ]show some respect

that wont work here!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Where were the terorist attacks during the era of Saddam Hussein?

Saddam was running Iraq in a pretty tight way. He had his "ears" almost everywhere and confronted opposition in a harsh way. Inner security was very tight.

Now as the US attacked Iraq that system collapsed as they dismissed army and police. A state of anarchy was introduced and the terrorist organizations, eager to fight their number 1 enemy, were enabled to flood the country as there was no border control or inner security anymore. Furthermore there is opposition wihin the people of Iraq against the occupiers for multiple reasons. This opposition is sometimes confused with terrorism but is of a different nature. Fanatic organizations of any kind were able to benefit of this situation and that is what created the situation we experience today.

[theavonlady 2]

No way in hell are the Italians going to accept that the men now declared national heroes were to blame. The only solution is a strong mea culpa from the US side, and that's exactly what has been happening. Bush made a formal apology and there have been few attempts of shifting the blame on the Italians. Even the initial reports, that the car was speeding and ignored warning signals, are not being repeated by the US.

Quote[/b] ]Was Italian Hostage's Car Speeding?

Italians Say No, But U.S. Military Official Says Vehicle Was Going Faster Than 100 Mph

WASHINGTON, March 8, 2005 — A senior U.S. military official tells ABC News he believes the investigation into the fatal shooting of an Italian intelligence officer by U.S. troops in Iraq will ultimately prove the officer's car was traveling in excess of 100 mph.

The car, which was carrying a newly released Italian hostage to freedom, came under fire from U.S. troops at a checkpoint Friday. Intelligence officer Nicola Calipari was hit by a bullet and killed as he threw himself in front of the freed hostage, journalist Giuliana Sgrena. Sgrena and another intelligence officer were wounded.

Sgrena has said she believes the car was deliberately ambushed because the United States opposes Italy's policy of negotiating with hostage-takers. The White House has dismissed claims that the shooting was anything but an accident as "absurd."

U.S. Official Says Driver Almost Lost Control Several Times

Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini told his country's parliament today that the shooting was an accident, but he contradicted the U.S. military's account of the incident. The U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which controls Baghdad, said in a statement that the vehicle was "traveling at high speeds" and did not stop at the checkpoint, despite a number of warnings. The military said U.S. soldiers only opened fire after the car ignored the warnings.

Fini, however, said the car was traveling no faster than 25 mph, and disputed the U.S. military's assertion that several warnings were given. He said the U.S. government must conduct a thorough investigation, "that responsibilities be pinpointed, and, where found, that the culprits be punished."

But, according to the senior U.S. military official, the car was traveling at speeds of more than 100 mph. The driver almost lost control several times before the shooting as the car hydroplaned through large puddles, the official told ABC News. The car had not gone through any previous checkpoints, the source added.

The official also denied previous claims that a tank opened fire on the car.

Fini said Calipari, an experienced officer who had negotiated the release of Sgrena and other hostages in Iraq in the past, had contacted U.S. authorities to let them know the car carrying the freed hostage would be on its way to the airport.

But according to the U.S. military official, Italians did not coordinate the transport with U.S. or coalition forces, and, as a result, U.S. soldiers did not know who was in the car. They instead believed the car was carrying a bomb.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz contributed to this report.

[Daddl 10]

100mph (=160km/h) vs about 40-50km/h as claimed by the italian side, that's quite a difference. I think this is getting more and more ridiculous. Imagine a car driving at 160km/h and getting shot at, 'aquaplaning through puddles', with the 'checkpoint' claimed to have been located behind a curve, etc. Someone's starting to throw smoke.

I don't think the attack was intentional, but the coverup happening right now is a shame!

[theavonlady 2]

100mph (=160km/h) vs about 40-50km/h as claimed by the italian side, that's quite a difference. I think this is getting more and more ridiculous. Imagine a car driving at 160km/h and getting shot at, 'aquaplaning through puddles', with the 'checkpoint' claimed to have been located behind a curve, etc. Someone's starting to throw smoke.

I don't think the attack was intentional, but the coverup happening  right now is a shame!  

Who's coverup? Italy's or the US? I certainly can't tell. How do you do it?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Imagine a car driving at 160km/h

Imagine a car going at that speed over a road that is covered with holes like the roads in Iraq are... (especially Route Irish with all it´s planted mines and blown of IED´s)

They wouldn´t even have come 100 m´s at that speed. A ridiculous claim as there is the driver who says they were going slower than 50 and all people in the car do confirm this.

I also wonder how the military official should know all that as they had no knowledge of the transport at all

Did they monitor the car ? If so , why did they shoot at it ?

This statement raises more questions than it answers.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

totally unrealistic, especially since the US forces are claiming they repeatedly gave signs to the car to stop... how do you find the time to give clear signals to a car driving that fast??...

[theavonlady 2]

A ridiculous claim as there is the driver who says they were going slower than 50 and all people in the car do confirm this.

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.

- Giuliana Sgrena, 'My Truth', Monday, March 7

50kph? 40? 60? 70? Sure sounds like they were joyriding to me! Sgrena herself describes the car as 'losing control' while they all 'incredibly laughed'. Yet they were all watching the speedometer one at the same time.

People in the car that can confirm? Their trust is automatic? What are the consequences if it turns out they they were going fast for that area and they're not telling anyone?

Are there any military speed or warning signs on that strip of road? If so, what's the limit? I know that 50KPH is the local limit here in residential areas and I can't picture that on a road with checkpoints and anticipation of enemy attacks.

[theavonlady 2]

totally unrealistic, especially since the US forces are claiming they repeatedly gave signs to the car to stop... how do you find the time to give clear signals to a car driving that fast??...

What if it was 100 KPH - not 100MPH? Then what?

And fact is that if they were going so fast, even if there was a signal, at that speed and that close they're automatically qualified for targetting.

Questions:

Were they traveling at 50kph, as the driver claims and is that slow enough on that stretch of road?

Were they travelling at 160kph, as the US claims?

Were they traveling somewhere in between those speeds?

What's the posted speed limit, if any, on the road to the airport?

[Balschoiw 0]

Giuliana Sgrena said in Baghdad and didn´t give an actual speed. You should know that tarmac in oriental countries gets slippery pretty soon when it gets wet. So while 50mpH in a city with wet tarmac can be pretty fast it doesn´t mean that they were driving 100 like the unnamed military said.

I still liked to know where he got that info from ?

Has Baghdad police already started handing out speeding tickets ?

Quote[/b] ]What if it was 100 KPH - not 100MPH? Then what?

It´s still a claim that they cannot back up. That´s it.

Quote[/b] ]

Were they traveling at 50kph, as the driver claims and is that slow enough on that stretch of road?

Yes, Route Irish is a pretty wide road.

Quote[/b] ]Were they travelling at 160kph, as the US claims?

Hardly. See above. How would they know if they had no knowledge of the car and the car passed no checkpoint ? The invisible guess strategy ? Very odd.

Can you guess the speed of a car if it passes you ? Especially when you don´t even see it ?

Quote[/b] ]Were they traveling somewhere in between those speeds?

See above.

Quote[/b] ]What's the posted speed limit, if any, on the road to the airport?

Waht are you going for now ?!?

It´s the most dangerous road in the area of Baghdad. I really doubt that there IS one that is obeyed....

Funny questions you have.

[denoir 0]

Were they travelling at 160kph, as the US claims?

The 160kph claim is inconsistent with the claim that the troops attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots

160 km/h =~ 45 m/s. Suppose you can se a person waving at nigth at a distance of say 200 m (if the scene is well-lit). So within 4 seconds, the troops were supposed to first wave, then start flashing white lights, fire warning shots and finally open fire on the car. Right.

So either they are lying about the speed, or the attempts to warn the driver. Or both.

Quote[/b] ]And fact is that if they were going so fast, even if there was a signal, at that speed and that close they're automatically qualified for targetting.

Avon's rule: Shoot anybody going above 100 km/h?

[theavonlady 2]

I still liked to know where he got that info from ?

Soldiers testimony, perhaps?

Quote[/b] ]It´s still a claim that they cannot back up. That´s it.

Can the Italian driver back up his claim? No more that the soldiers can.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Were they traveling at 50kph, as the driver claims and is that slow enough on that stretch of road?

Yes, Route Irish is a pretty wide road.

Width has nothing to do with it. Is there a marked speed limit there for security purposes? Is the limit unmarked? 50? Above? Below?

Quote[/b] ]Can you guess the speed of a car if it passes you ? Especially when you don´t even see it ?  

1. You're assuming they didn't see it. What's this based on?

2. So all checkpoints soldiers should assume that cars are only travelling at 20kph because most people can't guess the speed of a car that passes them?

Once again. All speculation. Where were the soldiers? In front of the car? Did the car pass soldiers somewhere back on the road and the soldiers radioed that there's an incoming hi-speed car?

No facts in. I don't know. Amazing how the rest of you do? I must get myself one of those magic 8-balls!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]What's the posted speed limit, if any, on the road to the airport?

Waht are you going for now ?!?

It´s the most dangerous road in the area of Baghdad. I really doubt that there IS one that is obeyed....

Funny questions you have.  

Whatever.

[theavonlady 2]

Avon's rule: Shoot anybody going above 100 km/h?  

After warnings and shots in the air and heading towards a US roadblock near Baghdad Airport?

Yes.

That's not Avon's rule. It's quite reasonable.

Chow time!

[red oct 2]

wait a sec, i thought this "road w/ holes" was the one she was traveling on w/ the people who abducted her and were taking her to the drop off spot to be picked up by the secret service agents.

and how do we know for sure they weren't speeding? Italians are pretty infamous for driving like lunatics after all. and they changed their story around a bit, first they said the road was dangerous which is why they were speeding, then they said it wasn't a checkpoint that fired on them but a patrol, then they changed around again and said it was a tank parked on the side of the road. if tank fired its machine gun at the car, wouldn't it had been likely everybody in the car would have been dead? the bullets would have ripped right through the agent who sheilded the journalist and killed her too, wouldn't it?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]After warnings and shots in the air and heading towards a US roadblock near Baghdad Airport?

Yes.

That's not Avon's rule. It's quite reasonable.

One thing forgotten is visibility. This allegedly happened at 8:55PM. Sunset is around 6:00pm according to online sources.

1) How is one suppose to see "hand and arm" gestures at night, even if the headlights are on?

2)How is one to see "a warning shot" at night? Sure they might have heard it, but this is Baghdad. Shots are common. And I doubt they saw the muzzle flash unless they happen to be looking in its direction. More likely it was a flash that they couldn't quite make out.

3)Flashing a white light? What is that suppose to warn against, or how is that suppose to convey a warning? Most likely it said nothing to the occupants of the car other than the Americans saw them.

Also how well lit is the area in which this incident happened? The bottom line is I imagine that both sides hold some culpability in the tragedy, but the American's have to stop being so damn free and quick to shoot anything that moves or "seems suspicious."

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]After warnings and shots in the air and heading towards a US roadblock near Baghdad Airport?

Yes.

That's not Avon's rule. It's quite reasonable.

One thing forgotten is visibility. This allegedly happened at 8:55PM.  Sunset is around 6:00pm according to online sources.

1) How is one suppose to see "hand and arm" gestures at night, even if the headlights are on?

2)How is one to see "a warning shot" at night? Sure they might have heard it, but this is Baghdad. Shots are common. And I doubt they saw the muzzle flash unless they happen to be looking in its direction. More likely it was a flash that they couldn't quite make out.

3)Flashing a white light? What is that suppose to warn against, or how is that suppose to convey a warning? Most likely it said nothing to the occupants of the car other than the Americans saw them.

Also how well lit is the area in which this incident happened? The bottom line is I imagine that both sides hold some culpability in the tragedy,

1) Well lit roadblock. Possibly holding some sort of light sticks or flashlights.

2) See? Hear. That's true for the daytime as well. And normally warning shots are after everything else. And if there's no change in the car's speed, what follows is inevitible.

3) So you say. I have no idea how the light was flashed but I would assume on such a road that someone is trying to get my attention.

All of your questions are fine. And both the questions and the answers are speculative.

Quote[/b] ] but the American's have to stop being so damn free and quick to shoot anything that moves or "seems suspicious."

I can just as fairly make the same generality about Italian driving habbits, as Red Oct did in his post above.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

can someone please create an animated gif so we have a better visual model to investigate on!

[theavonlady 2]

can someone please create an animated gif so we have a better visual model to investigate on!  

You mean using GTA and FRAPS?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I can just as fairly make the same generality about Italian driving habbits, as Red Oct did in his post above.

Perhaps, but Italian driving habits in Baghdad don't kill a lot of innocent civilians. For some one who continues to argue that we don't know the truth you seem to be pretty anti-Italian side and pro-American version. I've already stated that both are most likely at fault, but you seem incapable of even acknowledging that the Americans might have been at fault. Why is that Avon? Why is it that whenever the Americans do anything you immediately jump to their defense while at the same time trying to convince everyone that we don't know the whole story? Your ability at impartiality is suspect, and highly questionable.

Take for example my questions. They were rhetorical and required no answer, just food for thought at none of would possibly be able to answer them. And yet you do attempt to answer them, and with an obvious pro-American "they can do no wrong" bend. Quite wasting everyones time with your lame attempts at impartiality. No one is buying it. (And no you don't have to answer that either)

Quote[/b] ]1) Well lit roadblock. Possibly holding some sort of light sticks or flashlights.

Really? Got any photos of the area in question? Or are you just assuming like you accuse everyone else of?

Quote[/b] ]2) See? Hear. That's true for the daytime as well. And normally warning shots are after everything else. And if there's no change in the car's speed, what follows is inevitible.

If you care to actually read what I wrote, I already said they might have heard it, but in a place like Baghdad would it have really set off any alarms? And if there is no change in the car's speed what follows is not inevitable, especially given the likelyhood or possiblity of the shot being heard.

Quote[/b] ]3) So you say. I have no idea how the light was flashed but I would assume on such a road that someone is trying to get my attention.

Thats all well and good but you weren't driving the car. You weren't there, so you can not with any reasonable certainty state what you would have seen or heard or done. So spare us that speculation.

Quote[/b] ]All of your questions are fine. And both the questions and the answers are speculative.

Indeed. As they were meant to be. But the end remains the same. The US can not continue to indiscrimently shoot up cars because they are speeding. As someone has stated, there are a thousand possiblities other than a car bomb. If they are worried that a car bomb can get so close, then maybe they need to redesign the checkpoints to minimize the exposure of the soldiers and the fear they feel whenever Joe Iraqi comes driving up.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

can someone please create an animated gif so we have a better visual model to investigate on!  

You mean using GTA and FRAPS?

its an idea!   or what about OFP?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] or what about OFP?

Shouldn't be too hard.

"Car 400 meters!"

"ALL TARGET CAR!"

"Oh no! Hostage down!"

MISSION FAILED

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I can just as fairly make the same generality about Italian driving habbits, as Red Oct did in his post above.

Perhaps, but Italian driving habits in Baghdad don't kill a lot of innocent civilians. For some one who continues to argue that we don't know the truth you seem to be pretty anti-Italian side and pro-American version.

No. I repeat again. I don't know the facts. I have not said who is and is not to blame here. I am counterposting people like you who are passing judgement based on pure speculation and that judgement consistantly is anti-American.

Quote[/b] ] I've already stated that both are most likely at fault, but you seem incapable of even acknowledging that the Americans might have been at fault. Why is that Avon? Why is it that whenever the Americans do anything you immediately jump to their defense while at the same time trying to convince everyone that we don't know the whole story? Your ability at impartiality is suspect, and highly questionable.

Frankly, Akira, I don't give a damn.

I hope you never receive a position in a judicial system anywhere.

Is it wrong to jump to one's country's defence AFTER most everyone else here has passed guilty judgement against it? You're one of the jumpers here - not me.

Quote[/b] ]Take for example my questions. They were rhetorical and required no answer,

LOL! We should all shut up and accept your accusative questions - that's what they were.

Quote[/b] ]And yet you do attempt to answer them, and with an obvious pro-American "they can do no wrong" bend.

1. Is it a vice to be pro-American?

2. Is it a vice to be pro-Italian?

3. There can be plenty of American wrong here, no less than plenty of Italian wrong here.

The facts aren't in. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Quote[/b] ]Quite wasting everyones time with your lame attempts at impartiality. No one is buying it. (And no you don't have to answer that either)

How sad.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Can the Italian driver back up his claim? No more that the soldiers can.

At least he has something to look at that shows him the speed his car is moving at, while people outside the car don´t have that possibility.

Again: Have you ever tried to estimate the speed of a car that is coming up to you from the front ? Either you have the radar-look to do that or I will send you a pink cape to strengthne your superpowers. It´s not possible to estimate the speed of a car that is running up to you without technical help. I doubt the checkpoint had a radar gun to do that....

You also missed my point (willingly or not) :

How did they know at wich speed it was travelling ? From the things we know it was impossible for them. So where does this number come from ?

Quote[/b] ]Soldiers testimony, perhaps?

How could they know ? And where do you have that from ?

I can´t read such in the ABC article.

Quote[/b] ]Can the Italian driver back up his claim? No more that the soldiers can.

He has witnesses.

Quote[/b] ]

1. You're assuming they didn't see it. What's this based on?

Easy. They had no passed any checkpoint according to the ABC article, so the first contact they made (according to this "unnmaned" military source) were the soldiers at the checkpoint who shot at them. If they had knowledge of the vehicle earlier, why isn´t that documented ? They even say that they had no knowledge.

Quote[/b] ]2. So all checkpoints soldiers should assume that cars are only travelling at 20kph because most people can't guess the speed of a car that passes them?

Avon humbug logic

Quote[/b] ]Once again. All speculation. Where were the soldiers? In front of the car? Did the car pass soldiers somewhere back on the road and the soldiers radioed that there's an incoming hi-speed car?

As you say. Speculation.

Quote[/b] ]After warnings and shots in the air and heading towards a US roadblock near Baghdad Airport?

The way the first statement of lilitary officials looked they just released the 1-2-3-4 ROE measures that have to be taken. As denoir already pointed out, I´d like to see that all happen within 4 seconds....

Quote[/b] ]wait a sec, i thought this "road w/ holes" was the one she was traveling on w/ the people who abducted her and were taking her to the drop off spot to be picked up by the secret service agent

As I already pointed out , Route Irish is the "boom" road in Baghdad, that means that numerous IED´s, mines and other explosives penetrated the road surface since the beginning of this war. So holes have to be expected, don´t you think ?

Quote[/b] ]1) Well lit roadblock. Possibly holding some sort of light sticks or flashlights.

Yeah and some red circle painted on the helmet also.

You don´t put yourself into the light, even at roadblocks. You light the road ahead but not yourself. Average sniping Iraqi would be very thankful.

Quote[/b] ]but I would assume on such a road that someone is trying to get my attention.

And that would be the moment you´d be dead like a fish. You don´t stop on light signals on the most dangerous road you can think of. It´s just not the smartest idea to do so. Maybe you can think of why´s that....