Most of Giuliana Sgrena’s suspicion that she was targeted by US forces could be explained away in terms of bias (she was always against the war) and circumstances (she was reportedly "celebrating" in the car, so it’s possible she was not watching what was happening in front of the car), but, unless she’s simply lying about what her captors said, there’s either an eerie coincidence to her car being shot up (with apparently up to 400 rounds) or something stinks to high heaven:
In an article Sunday, Sgrena said her captors warned her shortly before her release to beware of the Americans. She later told Italian state TV RAI that "when they let me go, it was a difficult moment for me because they told me, `The Americans don’t want you to return alive to Italy.’" She didn’t elaborate.
The US account of what happened differs significantly from Sgrena’s:
The US military says the car was speeding as it approached a coalition checkpoint in western Baghdad at 2055 (1755 GMT) on Friday.
Soldiers used "hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and firing warning shots" to get the driver to stop.
When the car did not stop, soldiers shot into its engine block.
But
"There was no bright light, no signal," [Sgrena] told Italian La 7 TV in response to a US military account.
"We were driving slowly, about 40-50 km/h (25-30mph)," the driver, an unidentified Italian agent, said according to Italy’s Corriere della Sera.
In an interview to the BBC, she elaborated:
We had no signal. We were just on the way to the airport. They started to shoot at us without any light or signal. There was no block, there was nothing. It was so immediate. I didn’t know how I was alive after all that attack.
Why do you think the Americans opened fire?
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal. So you have to ask the Americans because we don’t know what happened.
Did the Americans continue to fire when your car had come to a halt?
Our car was destroyed. And then the driver got out and was shouting "we’re Italian, we’re Italian". So they came and they saw what happened. But I was badly injured so I can’t explain exactly what happened after because I was waiting for 20 minutes on the road for a military car to bring me to the hospital.
I don’t know if they knew what they were doing or not but it’s a big responsibility so they have to respond to what happened because it’s impossible to shoot a car on a road to the airport without giving any signal, any stop or any check.
Questions that remain, for me at least, include
- Does shooting out an engine block normally require 300-400 rounds of ammunition. And how lousy a shot are the folks firing?
- If the Italians were supposed to notify the Americans they were on the road to the Airport, as Sgrena reports, did that information get to the checkpoint, and if not, why not?
- If the goal was to murder Sgrena, why not finish the job when they realized she was still alive?
That last one is the big one, IMO. In other words, it sounds like it was indeed a "horrific accident" (as the White House has called it) and not an assassination attempt, but it represents an alarming degree of incompetency on the part of our checkpoints on that road.
I agree that if the goal was to assassinate Sgrena, the soldiers involved were incredibly incompetent. However, I’m not sure that someone who has shot up a car with 300-400 bullets can really claim that it was an “accident”. It was the deliberate shooting of an unarmed vehicle carrying civilians. Whether the shooters knew that they were shooting Italians who would get media coverage instead of their normal targets of Iraqis whose deaths would be ignored by the western media I don’t know from the description given.
Edward, I have to agree.
I wrote (and updated several times) a post on my journal where I finally came to the conclusion (which I may change if further information comes by) that this just another drive-by shooting on the part of the US military, and “bad luck” for that patrol that instead of their targets being Iraqi civilians about whom no effective inquiry would ever be made, they killed a man for whom an important ally of the US will demand someone take responsibility.
And that’s likely to be the poor sods of shooters on the spot, not anyone senior in the hierarchy who was aware that US soldiers were killing civilians in cars without trying to warn them first, and made no attempt to change this.
There are a fair number of links from my journal that provide interesting further reading.
This is a report on how confusing the checkpoints can be, on both sides.
I posted this on the Eason Jordan thread, but that’s going to drop out of sight soon:
Anybody who wants to see an actual U.S. roadblock in action should watch part one of this Frontline documentary. The relevant part is nine minutes in (about 2/3 along the scrub bar). Literally about two seconds passes between the “warning shot” and a hail of gunfire. This for a car that looks to be quite some distance away (the camera has to go telephoto to get a good shot of it backing up at high speed). Anybody who’s the least bit interested in what has been going on in Iraq should watch the whole 90-minute documentary, particularly since it gives a pretty good sense of just why the men are so jumpy, but this scene tells me more than any vague verbal description of these sorts of incidents ever could.
Keep in mind, Ed, that a 5.56 mm round is very small and that a car is very big. And she herself said that the Americans stopped shooting when they found out that the people in the car were Americans. So yes, it sounds like a colossal pooch-screw to me.
You could, of course, always go with the sinister explanation, with the evil (Pseudo-)Fascist Americans striving to cover up their Unspeakable Crimes with a targeted hit.
Though I must mention that one of the reasons that I cannot stand the Bush administration is that they have over the last year made it increasingly difficult to dismiss accusations of nefarious deeds on the part of American military and intelligence personnel.
I don’t read Italian, but a lot of sources say that the Italian press is absolutely convinced that this was a deliberate assassination attempt.
Y’know, it would have been a lot better if the reaction to Eason Jordan’s comments hadn’t been “Burn the witch!” but “You know, US soldiers are killing an awful lot of media workers in Iraq. Hey, perhaps we’d better look into that, maybe see if we can do something about stopping it…”
Of course, it would have been a lot better if that had happened back when US forces bombed the al-Jazeera office. Or attacked the Palestine Hotel. Or shot Mazen Dana.
I’d like to formally lodge my distaste for the term “drive-by shooting” in this context. I don’t know how that term is used in the UK, but here it nearly always implies malicious criminal intent. Having said that, I’m sure that’s exactly why Jes chose it, it being the most imflammatory possible term. If one can frame an argument in one’s preferred terms, one is halfway to winning.
Hard choices are made on The March to Freedom.
Thank God, men of good character are there to make them.
amen
I agree with Phil. Stick to the facts, Jes. There’s enough there to raise serious questions without going off the rhetorical deep end.
I’d second the motion that this was an accident. If it was an assassination attempt (the supposed motive of which I cannot fathom), then it would have been fairly simple to provide a coup de grace at the scene to finish the job.
The roadblocks in Iraq sound extremely chaotic. For every heart-rending episode involving civilian casualties that I’ve read about, the soldiers involved sound horrified at what’s happened, and seem to try to do as mmuch as they can to save the victims. Horrible, all round, these guys are going to be carrying a heavy emotional load for the rest of their lives.
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity. Or here, it seems, like a combination of adrenaline and fear.
And that’s one hella link there, Gromit. Thanks very much for it.
Still watching that first bit Gromit, but wanted to second Anarch’s thanks.
Awful for all involved.
I use the term “drive-by shooting” to place the blame squarely where it belongs. There appears to be a strong will to blame the Italians: they must have been driving badly, they must have been speeding, they must have refused to stop, it was their fault.
Hell if. This wasn’t an accident: the soldiers deliberately shot at a civilian vehicle with the intent of killing. They knew that if the people in the car were Iraqi civilians they’d get into no serious trouble – not even an embedded journalist was present, after all, so it would be their word against the Iraqis in the car, if the Iraqis survived, so why bother trying to give a warning? Shoot first.
The accident is that the victims weren’t just four Iraqi civilians who could live or die with no international interest.
If this was an assassination, why didn’t they kill her? You would think if there were 400 bullets, one more to her head wouldn’t have been that hard. And frankly, if you shoot a car 400 times and don’t kill the passengers, I would take that as a very very very strong indication that you weren’t trying to kill the passengers.
…”one of the reasons that I cannot stand the Bush administration is that they have over the last year made it increasingly difficult to dismiss accusations of nefarious deeds on the part of American military and intelligence personnel.”
While I would agree with your sentiments, Andrew, I would take issue with the assertions, as expressed. Mainly because, since the beginning of the Iraq War, the Bush Administration has itself been in the forefront of those “dismissing” allegations of misconduct by US troops/personnel (well, maybe not so much “dismissing” as just “ignoring”). The Abu Ghraib prison scandal is vitually the only instance of any sort of serious official probing into accusations of US abuses/mistakes in Iraq, and then only because horrific pictures got published (and even so only a few low-rank grunts got punished).
And of course, the Administration rarely even needs to address these issues much, since it can ususally count on a shrill chorus of right-wing talk-radio/blogosphere apologists to dismiss/ignore any allegations of misconduct “misconduct”, usually by demonizing/vilifying the victims and/or critics, and loudly and rapidly changing the subject – typically with arguments that boil down to “We’re in a War. Shut up.”
It’s my understanding that as soon as the U.S. Army completes their job of assassinating all journalists in Iraq, their cunning plan calls for the killing of all the puppies in the land.
Both goals, after all, make perfect sense. And let us always follow the guideline of attributing to maliciousness whatever might conceivably be a careless or ill-executed policy. Thirdly, let us always, always, always assume that reports that confirm our preferences must be correct, whereas reports that don’t support our preferences are obviously wrong. Thus will we find our way to truth.
Lastly, let us always rush into print with our judgments, no matter that we can’t possibly have enough solid information to be sure; because, on the internet, what’s important is speaking up early, rather than waiting to get more information. Time and time again we see that this philosophy is the best approach, whatever our ideology.
“If the goal was to murder Sgrena, why not finish the job when they realized she was still alive?”
Witnesses and deniability, which would be much easier if she was still in the car. One assumes a crowd had gathered on the periphery by the time the Americans determined she was still alive; and you might not even want American soldiers watching while you killed a major celebrity.
Not my belief or theory, just a possible explanation. Another possibility is she had pictures or documentation about Fallujah that were taken:mission accomplished, and she had been adequately warned. She would damage her credibility by claiming this without proof.
Understanding Neo-Imperialism
Jim Henley is good on this story. The lives of American soldiers in Iraq are vastly more valuable than the lives of Iraqi civilians, by American decree. History will judge.
What would Jesus do, if he was manning a checkpoint for Rome?
“This wasn’t an accident: the soldiers deliberately shot at a civilian vehicle with the intent of killing.”
If our soldiers can shoot a vehicle 400 times and not kill the occupants, it is extremely strong evidence that they did not have the intent of killing. If you want to kill the occupants of a vehicle, you don’t even need 400 shots. You aim at the windows and doors and you can get them with far fewer shots.
This episode, coming as it does on discussions of Eason Jordan, epitomizes so much of those issue.
1. Jumpy Americans at checkpoints wasting innocent Iraqi civilian vehicles because of a suspicion that the vehicle might be a threat. The 300 to 400 shots simply evidences that once someone opens fire, everyone is going for overkill to take out the “threat.” These are not police who are schooled to minimize the use of deadly force once it is employed — rather they are trained to do the opposite. But the notion that they are shooting just to take out the engine block is nonsense.
2. “Official” reports that seem to whitewash what is going on. Some minimal effort at warnings is probably usually given, but as Gromit’s reference above demonstrates, those warnings are frequently ineffective or have little chance of avoiding an incident. The notion that the victims are typically shot because of their carelessness in not heeding warnings does not wash.
3. What is “suspicious” activity is actually what normal Iraqis must do to survive. It just so happens that people must speed in the approaches to the airport (which are notoriously insecure) in order to avoid being taken out by insurgents and/or criminals. So spotting a speeding vehicle means nothing, and shooting at it for that reason (even though that may be a legitimate threat profile) means you are going to waste a lot of innocent civilians.
4. The journalist views this as a deliberate attack on media — is there any basis to speculate that this was a deliberate hit on the journalist, rather than another typical screwed up shooting? So what motivates the journalist to make this leap? Her comment that they were traveling at a slow speed contradicts other reports (even from the Italians) and makes no sense. Obviously she is speaking from her emotional trauma, but there is an obvious willingness to invent facts to fit the “kill media” line. This goes beyond “bias.”
“If you want to kill the occupants of a vehicle, you don’t even need 400 shots. You aim at the windows and doors and you can get them with far fewer shots.”
Unless, of course, the car is coming at you. In which case, the majority of the bullets would likely strike the front of the car.
That being said, I don’t think this was an intentional “assassination” attempt. At worst, I agree with some of the upthread posters who labeled it a “business as usual” situation until it turned out the occupants of the car were Italian Press and military rather than Iraqis.
“I use the term ‘drive-by shooting’ to place the blame squarely where it belongs.”
Possibly you are unfamiliar with the fact that “drive-by shooting” means people in a car drive by and shoot at those standing still; it has never meant the reverse.
Also, I’m reassured you know where blame “squarely” belongs; could you use your powers to tell me where my brown socks have gotten to, please?
If it isn’t clear, I’m perfectly prepared to believe that the soldiers fired with little visible warning to those in the car, just as I’m prepared to believe that the car may not have slowed down when approaching the checkpoint and may not have seen the checkpoint. I’m perfectly prepared to believe quite a number of other possibilities, as well. What I’m not prepared to believe is that anyone, including eye-witnesses, let alone someone relying on newspaper reports, has a sufficient grasp of what went on from both points of view to “know” what happened yet; such a claim is ludicrous, ignoring as it does that it’s common in a situation of violence or war for first-hand accounts to honestly disagree wildly, and that witnesses are in almost every case far more unreliable than reliable; it also ignores the fact that first reports of incidents in war are typically erroneous in various fashions. To claim “knowledge” that one account is fact, and another account is false is to claim something only a deity would be capable of; anyone who makes such a claim clearly has little credibility in so doing.
Note, by the way, that these observations don’t “defend” the American soldiers in the slightest.
Gary,
look behind the dryer.
Anarch: And that’s one hella link there, Gromit. Thanks very much for it.
Best thing on television, Anarch. Their documentary “Ghosts of Rwanda” is absolutely wrenching, though it doesn’t appear to be available online.
Sebastian Holsclaw: If our soldiers can shoot a vehicle 400 times and not kill the occupants, it is extremely strong evidence that they did not have the intent of killing. If you want to kill the occupants of a vehicle, you don’t even need 400 shots. You aim at the windows and doors and you can get them with far fewer shots.
I’m not jumping to any conclusions one way or another (except that I very much doubt the assassination angle), but from Sgrena’s description, had it not been for the body guard shielding here, dying in the process, she very likely would have been killed as well. So while intent to kill the occupants is not certain, it is also far from implausible.
Gary, they’re under the sofa, where you kicked them after you took your shoes off.
“If you want to kill the occupants of a vehicle, you don’t even need 400 shots. You aim at the windows and doors and you can get them with far fewer shots.”
I don’t know, but I would suspect the civilian vehicle being used by Italian secret service had some after-market armor protection.
Gary, as ever, is the voice of reason. Thank you, Gary. As I at least attempted to point out here, even the accounts of the passengers seem a little inconsistent at this point. In other words, I’m Waiting and Seeing.
And I disagree with bobzilla’s comments; any US soldier in a standing position is going to be able to see and shoot at the driver and passengers.
But I don’t have a sofa; the only seating here in my apartment is just a rocking chair, a bed, and my desk chair. And the porcelain altar. Please focus your psychic abilities on the bureaus or book cases or fireplace or skylights or balcony or the boxes or desks, please.
Probably the socks have merely mutated into clothes hangers; they do that, you know. Or it could be the Borrowers. Some might also suggest that it is militant Islamists who kidnapped the socks, whilst others believe the U.S. Army must be at fault for their many holes; I, of course, reserve judgment.
“You would think if there were 400 bullets, one more to the head wouldn’t have been that hard.”
Yep, I always thought the Sonny Corleone murder and the Bonnie and Clyde ambush went too far on the firepower.
My sources who have been in combat, as opposed to the movies, tell me 217 bullets will do the job.
Plus the taxpayer gets off easy.
Like they did for our rigorous combat training.
The ever reliable Washington Times is spinning it this way:
That’s a confusing conclusion, however, because apparently
According to the WT report, La Stampa did report that “vital information was withheld from the Americans” but doesn’t explain what that “vital information” was.
Personally, I think I would attempt to pay a ranson around the government as well, if my loved one were behing held captive. I understand why the US opposes it, but if it were me, I wouldn’t care.
Here’s an latimes story (reg req’d) about that road:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-airportroad7mar07,0,902949.story?coll=la-home-headlines
“Yep, I always thought the Sonny Corleone murder and the Bonnie and Clyde ambush went too far on the firepower.”
The amount used at the end of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, however, was Just Right, as was the number of bullets Al Pacino expended at the end of Scarface. After all, it’s the only way to be sure.
My own gut instinct on this is to suspect that you had a combination of American soldiers being too trigger happy and of the Italians suffering ‘selective memory’ so their memory of events makes them look completely innocent.
No one ever wants to take the blame; I expect they’d be telling the same story of their innocence even if it was all their fault. As it stands, I’m sure that there is likely some blame to go around on both sides.
so their memory of events makes them look completely innocent.
Might I suggest replacing “innocent” with “unresponsible” or something else that implies they didn’t deserve to die?
My sources who have been in combat, as opposed to the movies, tell me 217 bullets will do the job.
Plus the taxpayer gets off easy.
Well, it’s simple, innit? Just make like the Chinese Army and start charging per bullet.
John Biles: As it stands, I’m sure that there is likely some blame to go around on both sides.
Why? The Italians were driving down a secure road. They had already passed two checkpoints safely, which indicates that when US soldiers made it clear they were to stop/slow down, they did so.
Why must it be assumed that the victims must be in some way to blame?
* Does shooting out an engine block normally require 300-400 rounds of ammunition. And how lousy a shot are the folks firing?
I´m not sure about the 300-400 rounds.
It´s possible I suppose if the soldiers (in a panic?) just fired whole magazines into the car.
But who counted them?
Did they found the car again and counted bullets or holes?
IIRC Yahoo news on Saturday (AP story) mentioned that AP reporters asked to see the car and US army officials told them that they had no idea about the location.
Or did the US army count spent munition in the meantime and gave that information to the Italians?
And lousy shots…
It was evening in Bagdad, right?
Maybe already dark?
And one Italian newspaper mentioned “heavy rain”?
(as support to the claim that the car wasn´t speeding.)
If both are true then I suspect that given the low visibility shots will miss the target.
Of course low visibility would also mean that “hand and arm” signals are pretty much useless and senseless.
In fact IF it was dark and raining I would question if the US soldiers really used them.
Why use hand signals if you know that nobody can see them?
Light signals on the other hand make sense.
* If the Italians were supposed to notify the Americans they were on the road to the Airport, as Sgrena reports, did that information get to the checkpoint, and if not, why not?
From what I´ve read this was a “mobile” checkpoint and not a stationary one. And only in that location for 1-2 hours.
Assuming that the Americans were informed, it is possible that this group was simply not informed because nobody thought of them.
Not part of the regular schedule…
That communication fact though seems to be still unclear.
One Italian newspaper “La Stampa” alledgedly said yesterday that the Americans were informed and that an American colonel was waiting with another Italian group at the airport.
But IIRC another Italian newspaper (“La Repubblica” I believe) wrote this weekend that according to an anonymous source in the Iraqi government, neither the Iraqis nor the Americans were informed. Allegedly because the Italians wanted to avoid Giuliana Sgrena getting interrogated by anyone.
Additionally some newspapers say that these soldiers only arrived in Iraq a short while ago. If it was their first round, maybe they simply lacked experience.
(Not to mention the fact that reportedly there was a terrorist attack in the same region one week ago.)
* If the goal was to murder Sgrena, why not finish the job when they realized she was still alive?
Now I personally don´t believe this conspiracy theory.
I think Sgrena is – understandably – pretty much shaken up.
But just for the sake of an argument. 🙂
“…why not finish the job…”
Well, because it was supposed to look like a “horrific accident”?
And since someone in the car was allegedly speaking on the phone with Berlusconi? (or some other Italian back home)at the moment of the shooting, it would have looked slightly suspicious killing her and the other agent(s) later on? Knowing that they survived the actual shooting?
Or maybe the soldiers didn´t know they were supposed to kill her? Need to know?
Just give them a warning that a car suicide bomber might be coming for them this night?
And hope for the best?
Cause of death for Calipari for example was – according to the autopsy – one head shot.
As I said, I think it was a horrific accident.
But I´d like to know some things too.
Was there communication between the Italian agents and the Americans at the airport?
(I´ve read that Italian investigators want to examine the phones to determine with whom the agents spoke in the hours before the shooting.)
What exactly is “speeding” for the US army?
If only Sgrena were saying the car was going slowly, I might discount it. But the Italian agent is saying the same thing.
(Coupled with that how many agents were in the car? I´ve read about two or three in the last days.)
It´s difficult to believe that none of the SISMI agents would be paying attention to the road and surroundings.
This airport road is reportedly dangerous.
And at least Calipari had experience in Iraq.
(He already negotiated the release of the “two Simonas” in the past.)
So for them to see or hear nothing of the warning signals and shoots…
So for now I´m going with the “Der Spiegel” (German weekly magazine) theory from Saturday.
They speculated that “darkness, communication problems and green troops at the checkpoint” were the reasons.
Detlef,
Was there communication between the Italian agents and the Americans at the airport?
Not sure what time period you’re asking about here, but reportedly La Stampa offered:
Also, good point about the combination of “hand signals” and low visibility.
Why? The Italians were driving down a secure road.
As the latimes story I attempted to link to above shows, that road is hardly secure.
Maybe you guys need a Grassy Knoll Section or something.
I strongely suspect that this was over-reaction, mistake, jumpiness on the part of the soldiers, not a planned attempt to kill an individual. However, the claim that 400 shots doesn’t constitute a real effort to kill someone seems like a stretch to me. Clearly the soldiers did intend to kill the passengers. And they did kill at least one.
“The Italians were driving down a secure road.”
The road from Baghdad to the airport is “secure”? You might want to look into that a bit.
“Why must it be assumed that the victims must be in some way to blame?”
It can’t be assumed.
But when you say “It was the deliberate shooting of an unarmed vehicle carrying civilians,” why must it be assumed that such an act is inherently wrong? How would it be possible for anyone in the vicinity of a moving car to determine whether or not the passengers are or are not armed? Would it be reasonable, based upon the situation in Iraq, for soldiers to assume that a car speeding towards them must be non-hostile, and not carrying weapons or explosives?
Now, if you want to pull back to the general argument that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, and shouldn’t have soldiers there who have good and sufficient reason to be in fear of their lives and thus standing orders to shoot at cars that appear to threaten them, that’s one thing, but to argue that, once there, it’s simply inherently unreasonable for said soldiers to ever shoot “civilians” is another. Is noting that the Italians were “civilians” an attempt to distinguish them from the well-known uniformed army fighting the Americans?
To put this into statement form, I’d suggest that while any given shooting by the U.S. (or “coalition”) forces in Iraq may be perfectly reasonably questioned, it simply isn’t reasonable to assume that anyone who isn’t in a uniform and armed who is shot must have been killed because of criminal negligence or worse. (Whether US rules of engagement are insufficiently protective of Iraqis is a legitimate question, of course, but assuming the answer is not so much.)
A note on the driving not long before the checkpoint shooting:
The timing isn’t clear in her account. Did the checkpoint shooting occur right after the out of control driving? Did the driver slow down significantly after almost causing an accident in the rain? It is clear that at some point on this outing the driver was driving quite quickly. It isn’t obvious at what point.
Jes: Why must it be assumed that the victims must be in some way to blame?
I’m not sure that’s the intention, Jes. From what I’ve read, US troops are pretty jumpy about car bombs (I know I would be if I were them). The fact that 400 rounds didn’t kill all of the occupants of the car indicates to me that the intent was to disable the vehicle.
This doesn’t mean the the victims were to blame, nor does it excuse the shootings. It simply means that Iraq is an extremely dangerous place.
I’m thinking that there’s a lot to be said for the theory that the Italians didn’t want to admit they had paid $10 million to terrorist hostage-takers, and so decided to spirit the reporter out without notifying coalition forces. If so, a major share of the blame falls on them.
As for the incident itself, I find Cox & Forkum’s take to be a good one. Moral of the story: don’t try to speed through checkpoints manned by soldiers who are nervous about suicide bombers–it’ll get you killed.
In order to resist giving in to my darkest, most paranoid fears, I’m going with the hypothesis that this is one of hundreds of similar cases where civilian cars have been shot and civilians killed. These have been happening since the invasion, with no letup. The very commonplace-ness of such shootings makes it the most reasonable hypothesis, though a sad commentary on the position in which this government has placed the Iraqi people and U.S. troops.
However, even if there was no intention to kill the car’s occupants, and no knowledge of who they were, there was afterwards a cover-up or effort to take advantage of the shooting to penetrate the Italians’ intel on the hostage-taking: The Italians’ cell phones were taken by the Marines, and as far as I can tell have not yet been returned.
…don’t try to speed through checkpoints manned by soldiers who are nervous about suicide bombers–it’ll get you killed.
That is speculative. As far as I’ve seen, when these incidents happen, it’s not because people are trying to speed through a checkpoint, it’s because they don’t know a checkpoint is there, or because they misunderstand the procedure, or because they try to clear the area when warning shots are fired and head in the wrong direction.
As anyone who tries to get through a construction zone knows, these things get confusing. Add to that language difficulties, concealed and jumpy well-armed soldiers, risk of car bombs, and terrified drivers, and it’s not difficult to see how these things happen.
I strongely suspect that this was over-reaction, mistake, jumpiness on the part of the soldiers
Given the circumstances of facing armed foes that will defy ALL conventions, from suicide bombs to fake surrenders under white flag to randomly killing innocent bystanders, how earth could soldiers afford to under-react or error in favor of an approaching unknown? Unless you want those guys to take a suicide pact, they have no choice but to be deliberate and decisive. That isn’t the soldiers’ fault; the terrorists put everyone at incredible risk because of their defiance of the rules of war and humanity.
That isn’t the soldiers’ fault; the terrorists put everyone at incredible risk because of their defiance of the rules of war and humanity.
Resisting (and failing, apparently) the urge to point out that the whole Iraq invasion violated international rules of warfare, I’d have to point out that one of the aims of the insurgency must be to force the US troops into acts that target innocent civilians. It’s a standard tactic that makes the occupation forces unpopular. Insurgencies have used that kind strategy since before the Romans. It’s effective, and very much to be expected.
Resisting (and failing, apparently) the urge to point out that the whole Iraq invasion violated international rules of warfare
I’d recommend you resist the urge, given that you would be wrong.
It’s a standard tactic that makes the occupation forces unpopular. Insurgencies have used that kind strategy since before the Romans. It’s effective, and very much to be expected.
It’s also a tactic that sometimes backfires and makes insurgents very unpopular.
how earth could soldiers afford to under-react or error in favor of an approaching unknown? Unless you want those guys to take a suicide pact, they have no choice but to be deliberate and decisive. That isn’t the soldiers’ fault; the terrorists put everyone at incredible risk because of their defiance of the rules of war and humanity.
I’m not 100% in agreement with this “blame the terrorists” take on the incident, Mac. As Jim Henley notes (via the link Bob was kind enough to provide)
I’ll still insist that a pre-emptive war changes all the rules with regard to ensuring innocent civilians don’t get killed. If we were not ready to take on that extra burden of protecting their lives, we had no business going in. For me, it’s easy: imagine a similar incident here in the United States. Terrorists are bombing our roads, checkpoints are put up, innocent families, confused by this new arrangement get shot to death. Do we say, Oh well, it’s the terrorists fault, we can’t expect more of the folks on the roadblock?
Hell no. We’d insist that less dangerous methods were used to enforce the checkpoint security. The Iraqis (and all other civilians in Iraq) have the same right to insist on that.
Hell no.
Under like circumstances, you’re “hell no” is not only speculative, but rather unlikely.
or “your”
dang it. I normally screw that up the other way ’round.
you think Americans would tolerate the shooting of families and reporters and the like by soldiers on our highways? Really?
you think Americans would tolerate the shooting of families and reporters and the like by soldiers on our highways? Really?
Under truly like circumstances, where innocent American civilians were consistently getting blown up randomly, and lots of soldiers were being killed by suicide bombers at checkpoints.
Me: Resisting (and failing, apparently) the urge to point out that the whole Iraq invasion violated international rules of warfare
Macallan: I’d recommend you resist the urge, given that you would be wrong.
M. Scott Eiland: As for the incident itself, I find Cox & Forkum’s take to be a good one. Moral of the story: don’t try to speed through checkpoints manned by soldiers who are nervous about suicide bombers–it’ll get you killed.
Are these checkpoints clearly marked? Are they piled up with sandbags like in that idiotic and offensive little cartoon you linked? Do they even have “STOP” signs? It is possible that it isn’t representative, but the road block in the Frontline video doesn’t appear to be marked. From all I can tell, it consists of some armed soldiers in desert fatigues (which, incidentally, camouflage them) standing by the road with a desert camo HMMV shooting at a car that could easily be a quarter mile away. Do we know anything at this point about the checkpoint at which the Italians were shot?
Now, I can’t pretend to know what it’s like to move around in Baghdad, where there are folks with guns from many groups shooting at each other, and a bullet fired could come from an American warning you to stop, or to keep moving, or to get out of the way, or could come from an American firing at the insurgents behind you, or from insurgents trying to kidnap you, or from a wedding party. But I know that if I’m driving down the street here in the U.S., and I hear gunshots, the LAST THING I’m going to do is slow down the car. In fact I would probably speed up, which is just what many of these folks whose cars get shot up by U.S. troops do. Moreover, do you really think the Italian Secret Service is trained to STOP THE VEHICLE when shots are fired?
Yeah, the troops have reason to be jumpy. But did it ever occur to you that civilians have just as much reason to occasionally drive really fast when trying to get from place to place in a WAR ZONE, and that shots fired won’t always translate to “stop the car, and we promise we won’t keep shooting at you!”
Do the Israelis, who are reguarly bombed and blasted by suicidal terrorists, shoot-up innocents (other Israelis, Palestinians) at Israeli checkpoints with the same apparent frequency that Americans shoot-up Iraqi innocents at American checkpoints?
double-plus-ungood here’s another link
Also, presumably, the US media would take pains to tell the public about proper procedure for approaching checkpoints and thereby reduce casualties in that manner. These incidents have been happening for some time–I’m at a loss as to why so many Iraqi citizens haven’t gotten the message yet. Then again, a substantial number of American citizens die each year because they haven’t figured out that it’s a bad idea to race a train to a crossing or to play on railroad tracks, so it’s a bit unfair to blame Iraqis for having their own blind spots.
“These incidents have been happening for some time–I’m at a loss as to why so many Iraqi citizens haven’t gotten the message yet.”
This has been one of my areas of confusion. Are we not publicizing checkpoint procedure and the dangers of not following it because we don’t like to admit there have been problems? Do Iraqis not understand what is going on with checkpoints? What is up with that?
These incidents have been happening for some time–I’m at a loss as to why so many Iraqi citizens haven’t gotten the message yet.
Are you being serious? I actually can’t tell.
Sebastian,
Didn´t you read the early post from Edward?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0307/p01s04-woiq.html
“You’re driving along and you see a couple of soldiers standing by the side of the road – but that’s a pretty ubiquitous sight in Baghdad, so you don’t think anything of it. Next thing you know, soldiers are screaming at you, pointing their rifles and swiveling tank guns in your direction, and you didn’t even know it was a checkpoint.
If it’s confusing for me – and I’m an American – what is it like for Iraqis who don’t speak English?”
“These incidents have been happening for some time–I’m at a loss as to why so many Iraqi citizens haven’t gotten the message yet.”
This has been one of my areas of confusion. Are we not publicizing checkpoint procedure and the dangers of not following it because we don’t like to admit there have been problems? Do Iraqis not understand what is going on with checkpoints? What is up with that?
Given that we can’t seem to standardize and then communicate to the public what the TSA airport procedures are at any given moment (e.g. do I or do I not have to take off my shoes; and responding that I don’t have to take them off but if I don’t I will have to go through extra screening, makes it seem like I do), it doesn’t surprise me that we can’t do so where there’s a huge cultural and language gap and where the checkpoint encounters can be much more deadly.
double-plus-ungood here’s another link
Oh, well, it’s all legal then. I stand admonished.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to throw a rock through the window of a noisy neighbour that I haven’t signed any treaties with.
What I find upsetting is that here we are nearly two years after the fall of Baghdad and the security situation is so bad that our troops have very good reason for shooting any car that moves in their direction. Car bombs can do a lot of damage, even to a tank if they get close enough. There are nearly daily car bombings in Iraq.
I do not blame our soldiers. I do think that the failure to admit how bad things are has made matters worse.
Let me third the recommendation of the Henley post and the CS Monitor Edward linked to.
(Oddly enough, I know the reporter–I interned at the magazine she was working the summer after college graduation. So I can personally vouch for her credibility–she’s great.)
It seems that the checkpoints, at least the temporary ones, are anything by clearly checkpoints, which may be by design, but obviously is adding to the confusion.
take two
at least the temporary ones, are anything by clearly checkpoints,
Should be
at least the temporary ones, are anything but clearly marked as checkpoints.
Well…
According to the “Washington Times”:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050307-120131-5769r.htm
There were conflicting reports on the extent to which Italian authorities had informed their American counterparts about the operation, in which a reported $6 million was paid for the journalist’s release.
Mr. Calipari and another senior SISMI operative concluded the deal for her release on Friday in Abu Dhabi and then flew to Baghdad aboard a secret service Falcon executive jet to collect her, La Stampa said.
At the airport, they met an Italian military liaison officer and U.S. military authorities issued them passes allowing them to travel around Baghdad carrying weapons, the newspaper said citing SISMI sources.
The sources said the Italians explained “the terms of the mission” and “the exact nature of the operation” to U.S. officials at the airport. Sources also said an American officer was instructed to wait at the airport for Mr. Calipari and the freed hostage.
But La Stampa also quoted diplomatic sources saying vital information was withheld from the Americans.
“Italian intelligence decided to free Sgrena paying a sum to the kidnappers without informing American colleagues in Iraq who, if they had known about this, would have had to oppose it, to have impeded the operation,” sources said.
“If this was the case, it could explain why American intelligence had not informed the American military commands about the operation and thus the patrol did not expect the car with the Italians.”
So according to the “Washington Times” the Italians “explained “the terms of the mission” and “the exact nature of the operation” to U.S. officials at the airport.”
Allowing them to drive around Bagdad carrying weapons.
Even including an “American officer was instructed to wait at the airport for Mr. Calipari and the freed hostage”.
But they didn´t mention the ransom. Ohh!!!
(IIRC a ransom was paid for the “two Simonas” too. So any “intelligent” American intelligence officer might have known that Italy was paying a ransom this time too.
That was pretty obvious.)
But that might “explain why American intelligence had not informed the American military commands about the operation and thus the patrol did not expect the car with the Italians.”
You know, if that is true, I might have to revise my opinion that it was just a tragic accident!
IF American intelligence had not informed the American military commands of the operation because they “would have had to oppose it”…
This news item is on-topic:
Seems to reinforce what many are saying here.
99.9 % of the people in Iraq are not terrorist. While a majority may be anti-american only a tiny fraction of the population actually engages in terrorist activities.
Likewise over 99% of the vehicular traffic on any one day is not a car loaded with explosives seeking a target.
But when American shoot and kill Iraquis for failing to heed their checkpoint or patroll warnings how many of these are actually guilty of being terrorist? Very, very few. In fact, statistically, the odds are that any time American soldiers fire upon an Iraqui vehicle they are firing on innocent people.
Our soldiers are not dumb. They know full well that when they open fire at a ‘suspicious vehicle’ the most likely outcome is that they will kill some innocents. They do it anyway. Doesn’t this tell you something of the nature of the people we have in the military?
The only thing I hope for, out of this mess, is justice for the orphans created on Bush’ inauguration day at a similar checkpoint shooting. How many more innocent civilians have to be killed by American bullets?
“Our soldiers are not dumb. They know full well that when they open fire at a ‘suspicious vehicle’ the most likely outcome is that they will kill some innocents. They do it anyway. Doesn’t this tell you something of the nature of the people we have in the military?”
No.
Our soldiers are not dumb. They know full well that when they open fire at a ‘suspicious vehicle’ the most likely outcome is that they will kill some innocents. They do it anyway. Doesn’t this tell you something of the nature of the people we have in the military?
No, it tells us a great deal about you.
Have to agree with Mac and rilkefan, Ken. You’re leaping quite some distance to come up with that conclusion, and it’s really offensive to those of us with family in the military, as well.
bobzilla,
Unless, of course, the car is coming at you. In which case, the majority of the bullets would likely strike the front of the car.
Just curious. Would the “front of the car” include the windshield?
double +,
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to throw a rock through the window of a noisy neighbour that I haven’t signed any treaties with.
Did you guys sign a conditional ceasefire?
ken,
Likewise over 99% of the vehicular traffic on any one day is not a car loaded with explosives seeking a target.
Would you say that 99% of vehicular traffic speeds up towards checkpoints?
How many more innocent civilians have to be killed by American bullets?
They will continue to be killed until the people doing the killing realize how wrong it is. The soldiers are the ones who are killing these people and if we let the soldiers know we do not approve of their behavior they can put the pressure on for it to stop. You and I are no more effective against this killing than is the average Iraqui.
Did you guys sign a conditional ceasefire?
Hey, I was just cracking up at trying to imagine which other neighbor the noisy one invaded, and why double + had a mutual defense treaty with that one. That’s a unique neighborhood if you ask me.
Mac,
Heh, I wonder if the neighbor would come out and beat his for throwing the rock, or get a third party to mediate for a decade or so. Hm.
For every time a car bomb attack was thwarted by US soldiers killing the occupants of a vehicle approaching a checkpoint there are a hundred more vehicles shot at by US soldiers with innocents killed or maimed as a result.
Yet our soldiers continut to shoot at vehicles in which, statistically, they must know to contain innocent people. Why do they do this? How can they justify it?
US military policy is to minimize civilian casualties yet this policy of shoot first and cover up later leads to increased civilian casualties. Are they just that morally callus that the lives of innocent people mean nothing to them compared to their own protection? Where is the heroism in that? How can we be proud of people who do this sort of thing?
For every time a car bomb attack was thwarted by US soldiers killing the occupants of a vehicle approaching a checkpoint there are a hundred more vehicles shot at by US soldiers with innocents killed or maimed as a result.
Hundred? My sources say thousands. You got a cite?
Hey, I was just cracking up at trying to imagine which other neighbor the noisy one invaded, and why double + had a mutual defense treaty with that one. That’s a unique neighborhood if you ask me.
Well, if you’re suggesting that the invasion of Kuwait was the casus belli for the current invasion of Iraq, here’s George Bush Sr’s take on that:
Emphisis mine. Seems pretty clear to me that his interpretation of the madate did not include regime change.
That UN mandate…did that predate or postdate the cease-fire?
I believe Regime Change became official U.S. policy after repeated violations of the ceasefire. For more information see Clinton, William J.
Thought I might add some translations via dkos of Italian newspapers.
From an article on la Repubblica:
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/c/sezioni/esteri/iraq45/dettagli/dettagli.html
Italian magistrates discard the hypothesis of an ambush
“The US did not know the details”
Nicola Calipari had given details about Sgrena’s release only to a few other officials. Some clues from the agents’ phones logs.
Killed by a single bullet, a shot fired at a distance of fifty or a hundred metres, while Nicola Calipari was shielding Giuliana Sgrena with his body. Yet, as has been reported officially by the Carabinieri major who was driving the car, “the shooting lasted ten seconds and shots were fired from several weapons”. A hail of bullets, but Calipari was killed by a single shot and wounded by another.
Results of the autopsy add another element to the mystery of the journalist’s release and the shooting on Friday night… The magistrates, Franco Ionta and Pietro Saviotti, are leading an investigation for voluntary manslaughter, that’s the charge for the four members of the US patrol who opened fire. But they are not considering the hypothesis of an ambush, “an unfounded and illogical theory”. The reconstruction of events is still unclear. The key passage relies on three elements: the logs of calls from Calipari’s and the major’s mobile phones; the service report from the General who has been in charge for a year of operations in Baghdad, one of the few people with whom Calipari had shared the details of the operation; and the version of the US command, who had, nonetheless, been informed of the basics.
… The phone logs. … the investigators only have one of the phones so far, they’re still waiting to get the other two or three that Calipari was using, and the one the Carabiniere major was using. Apparently they are at the Italian embassy in Baghdad and will be handed over to magistrates as soon as possible, together with the weapons that have been seized from the US patrol. The reconstruction of events so far says that, in the twenty minutes between the release of the hostage and the shooting, Calipari made two phone calls in Italian: one to the head of intelligence services, Niccolò Pollari; the second to his local head in Baghdad, one of the very few people informed in detail about the operation. The major instead made only one phone call, in Italian, to the airport to war: “There’s three of us, we’re coming”. But the phones still have a lot to tell about the events of that day. There won’t be problems in reading the logs for calls made to Italian numbers; there might be problems with calls to Iraqi numbers or other nearby countries. It seems certain that the Prime Minister will not ask for classified status over the phone logs.
The report. This is another key passage in understanding how the operation was planned, who knew and how how much in detail they had been informed. The report should also clear up once and for all the question of how many people participated in the operation: two cars, as was initially reported? Many details will remain covered by classified status. Such as the entity of the ransom, for instance – reportedly 8 million euros, paid in Abu Dhabi to an Ulema leader a few hours before the release. And the fact that the car that transported Calipari and the major, who has a good knowledge of Baghdad seen as he was a local head of operations, was escorted on Friday afternoon to an alley at the outskirts of the capital, where Sgrena had been dropped off by a car driven by the local mediator with whom relase had been negotiated. The report from the general of the intelligence services is fundamental above all to understand who had full knowledge of the operation. “The US command had been informed of the mission, but not in details, and definitely not about the details of the release itself”, this is the version as recostructed by magistrates so far, as of last night. It means that the US knew that that Italian intelligence team was working for the release of the Italian hostage. As a consequence, so the investigators think, “there should have been an operation for protection [of the mission]”. But when, starting at what time and until what time? The line of knowledge is thin and frail. The investigators state that “Calipari had restricted information to a minimum, and only he had been keeping all contacts”. Five people is the number that’s being suggested [ie. the people who Calipari was keeping closely in touch with]: Pollari and the undersecretary Gianni Letta from the government’s office, the local head of intelligence, the major, and the mediator. A very low-profile choice to make the release as secure as possible. But perhaps, this at least is the working hypothesis, also resulting in an information “hole” and a “very unfortunate lack of communication”.
The charge. Having excluded the hypothesis of an ambush (“it seems unfounded and illogical”), the current charges by magistrates are voluntary homicide and attempted murder. [not sure about translation of legal definitions – both murder and manslaughter are “omicidio” in Italian, the only difference is involuntary or voluntary]. “We have to understand if rules of engagement were respected”, says one of the investigators. The major who was driving the car said they were travelling at a speed “between 60 and 70 km per hour” [37 to 43 miles per hour] and that he had spotted some “Jersey barriers but not a roadblock”. Suddenly, under the rain, there was a “flash of light”, but the “friendly” fire started immediately afterwards, “from the front, where there was a tank and a humvee”. What about the other signals of warning and stop required by procedures?
I can´t say anything about the reliability of that translation, and the same is true for the reliability of that article.
However…
“Ten seconds of shooting” and “four members of the US patrol who opened fire”.
What guns did those four members use to fire 300-400 shots in just 10 seconds?
Certainly not normal infantry assault guns?
Always assuming that the numbers of shots are right?
I´m certainly hoping that the investigation of the car and the investigation of the phone logs will clear this case.
Right now it seems to support the “darkness, communication problem and – maybe – green troops” suggestion.
Note though that this article mentions “rain” too.
Evening and rain ==> poor visibility.
“Hand and arm signals”, even light signals from flashlights might not have been that visible.
Stan: Heh, I wonder if the neighbor would come out and beat his for throwing the rock, or get a third party to mediate for a decade or so. Hm.
Nah. I’m 6’5″, 240 lb and look scary, and the noisy neighbor is merely an annoying pipsqueak, so I can pretty much do whatever I want without worrying about physical repercussions. There’s a bit of a moral dilemma about being perceived as a neighborhood bully who doesn’t need to pay attention to the rule of law, but by simply remembering that truth and justice is on my side, I can deal with it. Besides, the guy is an annoying pest, and I hear he abuses his kids, so anything I do is justified. Maybe all those other annoying neighbors will pay attention if I deal with this dirtbag.
Nah. I’m 6’5″, 240 lb and look scary, and the noisy neighbor is merely an annoying pipsqueak, so I can pretty much do whatever I want without worrying about physical repercussions.
But wouldn’t throwing that rock make you more enemies? 🙁
Stan,
After two years of occupation the US forces know that whether a vehicles speeds up, slows down, does a u-turn, or a complete stop the odds are that the occupants will be innocent Iraqis and the car will not contain explosives.
Why do they know this? Because experience has shown this to be the case. Ater they shoot at the ‘suspicious vehicle’ however they define it, they inevidiably find out that they shot and killed or maimed innocent people. The lucky ones, Iraqis and Americans both, get out of an incident like this with only the vehicle shot up and no one injured.
But what I don’t get is why they still do this knowing the outcome is going to be the probable death of innocent people.
For more information see Clinton, William J.
Uh, Mac…Bush was re-elected. The expiration date on the “Clinton defense” has passed. Just sayin’…
But wouldn’t throwing that rock make you more enemies? 🙁
6’5″, 240 lbs, look real scary. Besides, I believe the standard response is, “So what, they’ll hate me anyway, no matter what I do.”
Correct me if the phrasing is wrong.
ken,
No cite? That’s fine. I’ll just take the name of the organization that did the study, then. Thanks.
But what I don’t get is why they still do this knowing the outcome is going to be the probable death of innocent people.
I am confused. Are you referring to those who speed up, here?
After two years of occupation the US forces know that whether a vehicles speeds up, slows down, does a u-turn, or a complete stop the odds are that the occupants will be innocent Iraqis and the car will not contain explosives.
You’re right. The slow down rule is absurd. In fact, checkpoints are absurd. Odds are…
double +,
Good point. Ofcourse there’s always that chance that a bigger guy from a different neighborhood drops by and beats your ass…
Edward,
Bush was re-elected. The expiration date on the “Clinton defense” has passed.
I think he was responding to a specific point. Or certain facts are off the table now?
Ken: Why do they know this? Because experience has shown this to be the case. Ater they shoot at the ‘suspicious vehicle’ however they define it, they inevidiably find out that they shot and killed or maimed innocent people. The lucky ones, Iraqis and Americans both, get out of an incident like this with only the vehicle shot up and no one injured.
Ken, if I were a twenty-year old kid manning a roadblock in Iraq, I’d be a little freaked out about being shredded, maimed, or killed by a carbomb. I’d be worried about getting home to my family with my legs and arms still attached. I’d be worried about my loved ones having to care for a brain-damaged kid for the rest of his life.
I’d be a bit trigger-happy too. Which, I believe, is exactly the intent of the insurgents.
Good point. Of course there’s always that chance that a bigger guy from a different neighborhood drops by and beats your ass..
Not if it’s the only neighborhood, and I know everyone in it. And I spent more on weapons that the rest of the neighborhood combined.
We are on a slippery slope of bad analogies and will soon wind up off the rails in a ditch.
double+,
Weapons? Didn’t realize you were pro 2nd amendment 😛
Ofcourse your neighborhood is not the only one in the city. Sure, you can bully around your neighbors, because you know you can… I mean, who’s gonna schlep all the way there to stop you? Not Frank,Genny, or Russel – that’s for sure.
Edward, sorry to offend you but you must realize that the truth takes precedence over your feelings. There are hundred upon hundred of innocent Iraqi dead and maimed because of this military policy of shooting at anything and anyone deemed ‘suspicious’.
A lot of people defend our soldiers by saying that after two years of occupation the Iraqis should know that being anywhere near an american checkpoint or convoy can get your killed. They are blaming the victim with that kind of attitude.
Likewise, and this is my point, that after two years of experience American military personel KNOW that whenever they shoot at a suspicious vehicle they are probably shooting at innocent people. They know this because it happens regularly.
I don’t blame the innocent Iraqis for getting shot, I blame the military for shooting people they know are innocent.
ken,
I agree this represents a problem, but (specifically) I don’t think its the nature of the people in the military, as you suggested. The military is comprised of a very wide spectrum of people with many different natures. Most military personnel are incredibly disciplined. I don’t see your argument on that point.
I don’t blame the innocent Iraqis for getting shot, I blame the military for shooting people they know are innocent.
I blame you for arguing facts not in evidence.
There are hundred upon hundred of innocent Iraqi dead and maimed because of this military policy of shooting at anything and anyone deemed ‘suspicious’.
Cite?
A lot of people defend our soldiers by saying that after two years of occupation the Iraqis should know that being anywhere near an american checkpoint or convoy can get your killed.
Really? I’ll take just *one* cite (in lieu of “a lot”).
This is just another case of some of what we think we know not fitting with the rest. If these guys were carrying M-16s, no way (unless they stopped to reload a few times). If they all had SAWs with box magazines, then perhaps.
It’d be interesting to know what caliber round killed Calipari.
Stan: Weapons? Didn’t realize you were pro 2nd amendment 😛
We don’t have that amendment in Canada, Stan.
Edward: Most military personnel are incredibly disciplined.
As I’ve said before, if I could choose a military to be conquered and occupied by, it would be the American. Or possibly the Swiss.
And no, I’m not kidding (except that part about the Swiss). Reading about the reaction to the humane treatment that the Japanese prisoners received on Iwo Jima after some of the most bitter fighting of the war, it gladdens the heart and lifts your expectations of the human spirit. There’s a section in Toland’s The Rising Sun where a Japanese POW watches an American doctor treating another prisoner’s badly infected leg, with all the gore involved, and remarks that a Japanese Army doctor would not have treated the man because it would have stained his coat, and he expressed amazement that an American professional would do this for a captured foe.
And yes, I know there are many exception, but war is hell, and I think the US military is professional and humane compared to many others in the same circumstances.
Thanks for that, ++!good. It’s nice to know that Canada will greet its new fascist overlords with open arms.
Slarti,
He was kidding abou the Swiss 😛
Yeah, I know. But I wasn’t referring to the Swiss, ya big stoopidhead. And I was joking, too. But now that it’s been brought up, we could use a new hockey rink or 10,000.
:pppppppppp
It’s nice to know that Canada will greet its new fascist overlords with open arms.
I didn’t say we wouldn’t fight back, Slarti. We’re scrappy in a brawl, ask the Germans. And did I mention 6′ 5″, 240 lbs?
Having said this, we’re keenly aware that most of your water is in our country. And that we have the second largest oil reserves in the world. Did you know we’re doubling our military spending over the next few years?
Did you know we’re doubling our military spending over the next few years?
Warmongers! 🙁
DPU, all in good fun. The oil thing, though is certainly interesting. Dunno why we failed to consider our neighbor on the North when we were waging a war for OOIIILLLL.
Kidding aside, I consider Canada valuable friends and allies, and I’m not just saying that because you’re swimming in a sea of oil, with uranium beaches.
Damn. Just can’t seem to put the kidding aside for more than a sentence at a time.
Forget oil and uranium. If it weren’t for Canada where would most of the good comedy actors come from?
If it weren’t for Canada where would most of the good comedy actors come from?
I believe that we offer good beer and dope to you guys as well. Which might also account for the comedians, or at least your interpretation of how funny they are.
Now that’s a threadjack.
If it weren’t for Canada where would most of the good comedy actors come from?
Yeah, William Shatner and Keanu Reeves are giants, aren’t they. (though you might not be able to claim Keanu as he was born in Beirut)
Now we need a threadjack about how great Rush and Neil Young and The Tragically Hip and The New Pornographers are (or a thread, given recent posts)…
“(though you might not be able to claim Keanu as he was born in Beirut)”
And thus is it proved that Lebanon has the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Israel countered with its own Talentless Pretty Face technology, Natalie Portman.
Yeah, William Shatner and Keanu Reeves are giants, aren’t they.
Yeah, but Dan Aykroyd, John Candy, Jim Carrey, Thomas Chong, Marie Dressler, David Foley, Tom Green, Don Harron, Phil Hartman, Stephen Leacock, Eugene Levy, Rich Little, Bruce McCulloch, Kevin McDonald, Norm MacDonald, Mark McKinney, Howie Mandel, Andrea Martin, Lorne Michaels, Rick Moranis, Mike Myers, Catherine O’Hara, Mort Sahl, Mack Sennett, Martin Short, Frank Shuster, Steve Smith, David Steinberg, Dave Thomas, and Scott Thompson are all Canadian.
No Alan Thicke?!
Also Alex Trebek, who’s kind of funny sometimes.
Israel countered with its own Talentless Pretty Face technology, Natalie Portman.
She can act when she gets intelligent direction (Closer); but alas, George Lucas hasn’t intelligently directed anything since the 70s, so I’m sure in May despite the hopes (deluded as they may be) of millions of people, we’ll get another crappy ass movie.
Obligatory The Professional rebuttal here. I know, prepubescent acting gigs don’t count on the adult resume. But still…
“She can act when she gets intelligent direction (Closer)”
I disagree. As far as I can tell, it was the g-string that was being nominated for the Academy Award. The clip played during the Oscars to highlight her performance was simply embarassing next to the others. Also, Cheadle lost, so the Oscars are now officially a joke.
I loved the Professional. It was the first DVD I bought. The character was what. . 12 years old? She plays a good 12-year-old. I wanted to like her. . I really did. Wish she could act.
My threadjack is now total.
Speaking of Natalie Portman and action movies with tough guys who get gelatinous confronted with adorable, saw the Denzel Washington Man on Fire Saturday Night
and Dakota Fanning was terrific. I am also in love with Radha Mitchell.
But though I can’t say the original was as good, Denzel had a whole lot of help in the writing, production & directing, I will say that I preferred Scott Glenn to Washington as the lead.
(This was a sideways threadjack. Now Gary Farber needs to tee off on Radha Mitchell and explain why the astronomy in Pitch Black was just stupid)
It’s a standard tactic that makes the occupation forces unpopular. Insurgencies have used that kind strategy since before the Romans. It’s effective, and very much to be expected.
Which means that you don’t underman the occupation in order to invade on the cheap, thereby making effective security and counter-insurgency impossible, since it’s to be expected.
For all those apologists about this shooting, the normal modus operandi for anyone traveling the airport road in question is to speed in order to avoid insurgent and/or criminal attack. The road is notoriously insecure — sort of a touchstone of policy failure for the occupation that the airport road is not secure.
Setting up a mobile check-point (which someone above indicated was the nature of this checkpoint) in that situation is guaranteed to result in shooting at people speeding down the road who are unaware of the new checkpoint ahead, and do not react in time before US troops open fire.
Blaming the Italians is just sleazy.
I disagree. As far as I can tell, it was the g-string that was being nominated for the Academy Award. The clip played during the Oscars to highlight her performance was simply embarassing next to the others.
Well I have to admit that I was basing my statement on the Oscar nom, but I don’t recall much criticism of her nomination.
BTW, I have it on good authority that Ms. Portman (not her real name) is very personable and nice, and, actually more beautiful in person than on-screen! Sigh.
Also Alex Trebek, who’s kind of funny sometimes.
Only when Sean Connery is a celebrity guest contestant.
Astronomy? I’d have said “orbital mechanics”, but that’s me. Very, very stupid.
She can act when she gets intelligent direction (Closer); but alas, George Lucas hasn’t intelligently directed anything since the 70s, so I’m sure in May despite the hopes (deluded as they may be) of millions of people, we’ll get another crappy ass movie.
I hate to play the fanboy here and sound like I’m making excuses, but this statement is based on the faulty assumption that Lucas is shooting for, and not achieving, something other than what you see on the screen. Given the context of the material he’s shooting these days, he directs his actors in an archaic idiom: Melodrama, in the purest sense of the word. Seriously, if he thought he could get away with Chancellor Palpatine having a mustache and twirling it, he would.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I have an idea for a different picture – “The one that got released”.
Overpriced counterfeit
I’ve been thinking, that if I were in one of those *soldier’s boots (that did the checkpoint shooting), I would probably want a chance to personally apologize to the widows. If I were one of the widows, I think it would mean something to get that apology also.
votermom nails it again!
Votermom: If I were one of the widows, I think it would mean something to get that apology also.
It would appear, from conversations on livejournal (I linked to one busy thread from my journal) that the US military has no intention of allowing anything like that to happen. An apology, after all, denotes blame.
Stan LS: I have an idea for a different picture – “The one that got released”.
I’m sure the Italians responsible will appreciate your praise, Stan, though the US soldiers have killed the man in charge of the her release.
Votermom, I thought you’d appreciate this:
“afterwards two young American soldiers approached Calipari and repeatedly apologized to him.”
Such monsters…
Macallan: Such monsters…
You really think so, Mac? I think you’re the only person who does…
More from Anna’s journal:
Thanks jes, i did read that, which also makes me think that they need* to apologize to someone who can hear them.
*need in the sense that it would be good for them
It’s not about blame. Blood spilled needs to be acknowledged. I think there’s something very deeply-rooted in human history that calls for that.
It’s something that others have pointed out also that seems to be missing in the US when it comes to our own dead — we have not been given a chance to fully mourn our own casualties. We are in denial.
You really think so, Mac? I think you’re the only person who does…
Not I. That was more in reference to people who state things like this:
“that this just another drive-by shooting on the part of the US military, and “bad luck” for that patrol that instead of their targets being Iraqi civilians about whom no effective inquiry would ever be made, they killed a man for whom an important ally of the US will demand someone take responsibility.”
“US soldiers were killing civilians in cars without trying to warn them first”
“This wasn’t an accident: the soldiers deliberately shot at a civilian vehicle with the intent of killing.”
Congratulations, Macallan: You have just won today’s Karnak Award.
Mind reading not required. You accuse someone of cold-blooded murder; don’t whine when your words are quoted back to you.
don’t whine when your words are quoted back to you.
Again with the mindreading! No, Macallan, I’m not “whining”: I’m finding your claims to guess what I’m thinking on a topic I haven’t discussed with you grimly funny.
When you retract your unfounded accusations of cold-blooded murder get back to me.
Macallan, I can’t think of any reason why I should bother to get back to someone who claims to be able to read my mind. Enjoy your well-earned Karnak Award.
I’ve been through this thread a couple of times. I may have missed it, but have any of the conservatives pointed out that a ransom of 8 million euros is a substantial amount of liquid cash for an insurgent group and is likely to lead to the deaths of American soldiers?
Its wierd you guys are so sensitive to critisism, you don’t seem to be able to keep your eye on the ball.
Giuliana Sgrena definately has a right to be as critical of us as she wants to be. The italians are probably unlikely to support us in Iraq much longer. Again that is their right. If you want to critisize them I think the ransom they paid is better grounds than whineing about how unfair it is that they are upset we shot them.
Convincing yourself isn’t the same as convincing others.
That is good point Frank.
You can hear an eyewitness account of the tense atmosphere driving in Iraq and the frequent shooting, Mark Danner appeared today on KQED’s Forum (in progress as I write, audio will no doubt be posted later).
Danner is professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and staff writer for The New Yorker. His latest book is titled “Torture and Truth: America, Abu Graib, and the War and Terror. He has recently returned from Iraq, where he interviewed, among others, refugees from Falluja.
I may have missed it, but have any of the conservatives pointed out that a ransom of 8 million euros is a substantial amount of liquid cash for an insurgent group and is likely to lead to the deaths of American soldiers?
It would be a good thing if the US govt would stop putting US soldiers in situations that make them behave in ways that make it hard for the rest of the world to sympathize with them.
Afaict, there is a large world sentiment now that US soldiers are behaving with callous disregard for pain and suffering of anyone who is not a US soldier. Hearts and minds, we are losing them.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Fallujah white flags, checkpoint shootings, Ramadi madness video.
If Rumsfield got kidnapped (just pretend, ok), should the US pay ransom? Would it? How about if it was Laura Bush? Ann Coulter? Mel Gibson? Paris Hilton? Nick Berg?
In what way is he mind-reading? He’s pretty much just quoting you back to you.
That is accusing the soldiers of murder. The only mind reading needed would be to find out that you have non-standard usages of words or phrases to make that a non-accusation of murder.
votermom- Generally I agree with you here. I don’t know who nick berg is, but go ahead and kidnap the rest.
(No we shouldn’t pay ransoms)
votermom,
If Rumsfield got kidnapped (just pretend, ok), should the US pay ransom? Would it? How about if it was Laura Bush? Ann Coulter? Mel Gibson? Paris Hilton? Nick Berg?
Huh? What about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc? What point are you trying to make by selecting those particular people?
Sebastian- If Jes had meant murder she would have used the word murder. Go re-read the relevent Henley post, or alternatively just pull your head out of your posterior.
Now I’m wondering why Mac has to read a Henley post in order to properly interpret Jesurgislac. This day is getting more and more confusing.
In what way is he mind-reading? He’s pretty much just quoting you back to you.
Try starting from his March 8, 2005 12:38 PM comment, Slarti: that’s what really got him the Karnak award.
I disagree with the bit you quoted from Jes only to the extent that I don’t claim to know the soldiers didn’t try to warn the people in the car (I do doubt the soldiers made a serious effort at it.)
I would have mentioned that the soldiers don’t have any real motive to take a chance on a civilian car not being a car bomb. (i.e. they might have been scared.)
Do you think thats “murder” I’m not so sure.
“Such monsters” got him a Karnak? Usually one must do much more specific mindreading than that, but…standards vary.
“Such monsters” got him a Karnak? Usually one must do much more specific mindreading than that, but…standards vary.
As I said, Slarti, start from that comment and read down. Macallan seems to think he can read my mind: isn’t that what people get Karnak awards for?
Huh? What about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc? What point are you trying to make by selecting those particular people?
The first few are neo con icons, threw in Paris Hilton coz I hate her, and Nick Berg is the guy who did get beheaded. No state funeral for him, poor bugger.
My point is that personally I don’t give a flying fig about these people, but I think that they deserved to get ransomned (spelling?). Anybody who gets kidnapped deserves a chance to get out alive. If I was a member of their family, I don’t really care what the ransom is used for — that’s what law enforcement is for — to catch them when they use it for evil. But get my loved one out alive. See Edwards’ thread on What We Treasure (or whatever the title is). I treasure life over ideology. Sure it makes it tough for the US when we give in to ransom demands. But you know, from what I hear, kidnap-for-ransom wasn’t a big problem in Iraq before we invaded. So don’t blame the victims for paying ransoms, don’t blame their families if they won’t just nicely let them get beheaded.
Freedom, freedom, freedom. It’s everyone else’s privelege to die for it, apparently.
It’s clearly my fault Slarti. One assumes that most people think murderers are monsters, but you know what happens when you assume.
“If Jes had meant murder she would have used the word murder.”
What makes you think that? Is it impossible to make an accusation without using the easy word? Clearly no. Murder has three basic components. Intentional, unlawful, killing. Jesurgislac alleges all three. If, purely by way of analogy, I were to allege that someone is incapable of following simple arguments due to intellectual deficiency, I would be calling them an idiot without using the word right? I wouldn’t be able to retreat with “I didn’t call him an idiot”. That would be silly. Failure to use the easy word is not failure to make the accusation.
Heh.
Better order a gross, is all I’ve got to say.
I don’t give a flying fig about these people
Clarify — I exclude Nick Berg from that. I didn’t know him at all, but he’s not in a “well-known person” category. Wrong place, wrong time, should have been ransomed.
Votermom: But you know, from what I hear, kidnap-for-ransom wasn’t a big problem in Iraq before we invaded.
Whereas nowadays, it’s a thriving business. (Slart, just ask Google for “iraq kidnap ransom” if you want references).
“I treasure life over ideology.”
You treasure the life of the person in danger now, over the life of all the people you put in danger when you give terrorists millions of dollars. That isn’t treasuring ‘life’. That is not seeing the obvious consequences of paying ransoms to terrorists. How many civilians will die for millions of dollars of bombs paid for with that ransom? Do you fail to pay the ransom and probably let this one person be murdered, or do you pay the ransom and fund tens or hundreds of people being murdered? You can’t make that choice go away by pretending it isn’t there.
Sebastian: Failure to use the easy word is not failure to make the accusation.
Macallan gets the Karnak award not for concluding that I think the American soldiers committed murder, but for concluding that I think the American soldiers are monsters.
Macallan plainly hasn’t bothered to read my journal entry to find out what I actually think (or at least, thought when I wrote it). Have you?
Slarti: Better order a gross, is all I’ve got to say.
If you say so. You know Macallan better than I do. 😉
Eh? Did I say anything to prompt this?
Sebastian, I think “unlawful” is in question here. Will anyone be indicted based on this incident? We must wait to see the results of the investigation. It’s not like there’s any mystery about who was there.
As to the many other, probably (we don’t know for sure) uninvestigated incidents, where I hypothesize many innocent Iraqis have died, well, it bothers me.
Yes, in another thread. I was just heading it off. (Do I get a Karnak)
Sebastian, I find it ironic that someone who supported the US invasion of Iraq (and who, I think, still supports it) would presume to lecture anyone on putting human life above ideology. One hundred thousand Iraqis at least have been killed because Bush invaded Iraq.
One hundred thousand Iraqis at least have been killed because Bush invaded Iraq.
Why not say a million? or a gazillion? Shoot, if you’re going to make up, or repeat made up numbers, go for the gold!
No, the whole law and order sitch in Iraq is broken. One guess who broke it. Who invaded without a plan?
The problem of kidnapping is the occupying forces’ problem. What alternative does a kidnap victim have there? If my kid got kidnapped in the US, the FBI would have a chance of getting her back without ransom. The only chance a kidnap victim in Iraq has of getting out alive is ransom. If my kid got kidnapped in Iraq I wouldn’t be saying “Oh, well, too bad, but for the sake of overcoming terrorism, let her die.” If I had no way of paying ransom, I might try to go to the kidnappers and say — “I have no money, but take me instead and do what you will, torture and kill me, but please release my child.”
Buit if I could raise the money, I would pay it, without a thought. I did not bring my kids into this world to see them killed. If I could prevent that in any way, I would.
My point is, before you blame people for paying ransom, imagine if it was your child, your sister, your mother who was kidnapped. Then be honest about what you would do.
I must have missed where Jes said the killing was unlawful. Although it is an interesting question, since Bremer declared by decree that American soldiers and mercenaries are exempt from Iraqi law. (Since the mercs aren’t subject to the UCMJ they aren’t governed by any law at all.) Does his decree have any real legal standing? It is an open question.
Paying ransom encourages future kidnappers. One reason for despising Reagan is that he encouraged terrorists to believe kidnapping Americans was well worth their time.
One reason I like Jes is that she doesn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade. If she had meant murder she wouldn’t have hesitated to say so.
Macallan: Why not say a million? or a gazillion? Shoot, if you’re going to make up, or repeat made up numbers, go for the gold!
Ah, the good old “If I bury my head in the sand and don’t look at it those nasty numbers won’t be true anymore” methodology.
Votermom: My point is, before you blame people for paying ransom, imagine if it was your child, your sister, your mother who was kidnapped. Then be honest about what you would do.
And when considering the shooting of Sgrena’s car and the killing of Nicola Calipari, ask yourself how you would feel if this had been Jessica Lynch shot by Italian soldiers 700 meters from the airport, and an American secret service agent who had died shielding her with his body.
Paying ransom encourages future kidnappers.
Yes, I agree that it does. But what would you do if your kid was kidnapped in Iraq, and the choice is pay ransom or see her beheaded?
Mac: Why not say a million? or a gazillion? Shoot, if you’re going to make up, or repeat made up numbers, go for the gold!
What’s the actual number, Mac? And even if you disagree with the Lancet numbers (although “made up” seems like a cheap comment to make) and think the actual number lower, Jes’ point still stands.
Votermom- I would do anything at all that I thought could work to get my child back. Certainly I’d pay the ransom. That isn’t the point though. The government should not allow the paying of ransom, still less should it engage in that act itself. The Italians have their own lookout, but that 8 million euros is probably going to get some Americans killed.
Ah, numbers. So hard to come by.
Part of the administration’s strategy has been to keep the facts out of the news as much as possible. We -ahem- don’t do body counts. We fly injured soldiers home in the dark and prohibit photographs of caskets.
It is a little provoking then to be criticized for using the best information available.
The government should not allow the paying of ransom, still less should it engage in that act itself.
Why? I really don’t understand that. Doesn’t the govt have a responisbility to it’s citizens? Who else was going to get Sgrena out of there if not the Italian govt?
The Italians have their own lookout, but that 8 million euros is probably going to get some Americans killed.
All the more reason to invest in actual security measures, beyond pretty color codes and making new terrorists by torturing innocent people.
I guess my pov is that it’s all so FUBAR that the issue of paying ransom is really minor, at this point. It’s like complaining about the second-hand smoke when the house is burning down. YMMV.
How would I feel Jes? I would be upset that such stupid things happen during wartime and hope that communication would be improved between the Italians and the US so it doesn’t happen anymore. I would hope the Italians learn from their mistake and improve their methodology.
I would be happy that Jessica got home alive and would recover.
I would be saddened by the loss of a brave man doing his duty for his country, but proud of the honor he showed in the performance of it.
What I would NOT do is use the opportunity to try to push the US to stop helping the Italians in their fight against people that would kidnap, ransom and murder innocents. You know the ones that put ‘Jessica’ in danger in the first place.
But that is just me.
Votermom- I think that the Iraq situation is FUBAR too. I don’t really agree that means we should let go of the principle that paying ransom is a bad bad idea. That just means that way more people will get kidnapped in this FUBAR situation.
You can do something other than pay ransom. You can try to rescue them. Some of them will probably get killed, but even if you pay ransom sometimes kidnappers kill instead of releasing the hostage. Some people are killed during attempted kidnappings as well, so thats another reason not to encourage kidnapping.
Crackpot- So when US soldiers kill Italians at a checkpoint its the Italians fault? And when Italians soldiers kill Americans at a checkpoint it is again the Italian’s fault. Wow. Just Wow.
“One reason I like Jes is that she doesn’t hesitate to call a spade a spade. If she had meant murder she wouldn’t have hesitated to say so.”
“Macallan gets the Karnak award not for concluding that I think the American soldiers committed murder, but for concluding that I think the American soldiers are monsters.”
And there we have it.
“I must have missed where Jes said the killing was unlawful.”
You must have. It is right here: “US soldiers were killing civilians in cars without trying to warn them first”
“This wasn’t an accident: the soldiers deliberately shot at a civilian vehicle with the intent of killing.”
But let’s try to avoid weaseling like with the recent Afghanistan topic.
Jesurgislac. Are you alleging murder?
Sebastian- Again your quote doesn’t prove what you think it does.
Personally I think that if the Italians had braked the instant (I mean within a tenth of a second) that spotlight had hit the car they probably would not have gotten shot.
However if one of the soldiers had thought he had seen a gun a warning wouldn’t have been warrented by the rules of engagement we are useing. At least thats what the soldiers in the frontline documentary said.
Does being hit by a spotlight constitute a warning?
I’ll await Jesurgislac’s reply.
I think you need to re-read what Jes wrote at 2:48 and see how my answer is in response to that, Frank.
I don’t think I inferred what you think I inferred. Perhaps you could explain how what I said leads you to your conclusion?
Jesurgislac. Are you alleging murder?
*shrug* First, define murder.
While you’re getting het up about this, let me point you to a useful series of posts on Patrick Nielsen Hayden‘s livejournal, and in particular, this post:
Nicola Calipari is dead. He’s dead because US soldiers shot him. It’s somehow still surprising to me that you, Sebastian, are so much more passionate and eager to defend the soldiers who killed him than you are to mourn the death of a hero. I can’t think why it should still be surprising, that your sympathies should end so sharply at your national borders, but there it is.
After all, Calipari was only an Italian, and he only died shielding another Italian with his own body. Why should you care, Sebastian? It isn’t as if any Americans were killed.
Jesurgislac. As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Sebastian, as you understand the term, do you comprehend that a good man, a hero, was killed by American soldiers, and I have not seen you so much as express regret that it happened, only the familiar Americans-matter-more outrage that anyone should dare speak a word of criticism of those responsible?
I have not seen you so much as express regret that it happened
Perhaps a bit unfair posed to Sebastian alone, but good point. A sense of loss for him and his family is missing in much of the dialog on this.
Perhaps a bit unfair posed to Sebastian alone, but good point. A sense of loss for him and his family is missing in much of the dialog on this.
Oh sure, Edward, the question can be addressed to others on this thread, too. I was just struck by it particularly in this dialogue with Sebastian.
Nicola Calipari is dead. Macallan’s response to my quote of the two American soldiers who tried to apologise to his corpse was to claim (falsely) that I’d said they were “monsters”. Sebastian seems to care more that I don’t accuse the soldiers who killed them of murder.
I was really bloody impressed by Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s post: and yeah, I wish that Sebastian would go read it, and go read about Nicola Calipari, and then try to write something, the way I know he can write, to his fellow right-wingers, to point out that American soldiers killed a hero, a brave man who went to Iraq to rescue Guiliana Sgrena from her kidnappers, got her out, and died shielding her with his own body from American bullets. And now so many right-wing Americans are attacking the Italians in the car, are passionately defending the Americans who killed Calipari, and – as far as I can see – are not wasting one ounce, one scruple of their time, to praise without stint Nicola Calipari as he deserves.
It’s unfair to pile all that on Sebastian. Everyone writes about what moves them, and if Sebastian is not moved to write by this story, well, people are moved to write by different things.
But yeah, I look at that rightwing blogmob that set up an entire website to attack Eason Jordan for comments uttered in private, and yet can’t be bothered to say anything much in praise about a hero killed by American soldiers.
Perhaps a bit unfair posed to Sebastian alone, but good point. A sense of loss for him and his family is missing in much of the dialog on this.
I thought for sure Jes would issue you a Karnak Award for that…
Macallan: I thought for sure Jes would issue you a Karnak Award for that…
Do point out to me where in this thread you or Sebastian express your regrets about Nicola Calipari being killed.
“Do point out to me where in this thread you or Sebastian express your regrets about Nicola Calipari being killed.”
The requirement of bowing to the God of Being a Good Person and writing “I think this bad thing is bad” seems out of place here.
Without stepping into about 3271 points raised here, I thought I’d note this:
Since this point was discussed here, I’d thought I’d note that the record has changed on this. That’s all.
I’m deeply sorry for the loss of Nicola Calipari; at the very least, and whatever else may have happened, this is a tragedy.
“Sebastian, as you understand the term, do you comprehend that a good man, a hero, was killed by American soldiers, and I have not seen you so much as express regret that it happened, only the familiar Americans-matter-more outrage that anyone should dare speak a word of criticism of those responsible?”
Yes.
Jesurgislac. As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Rilkefan: The requirement of bowing to the God of Being a Good Person and writing “I think this bad thing is bad” seems out of place here.
Not the point I was making to Macallan, Rilkefan.
Sebastian: Yes.
Lovely, Sebastian: thanks for confirming everything I’ve been thinking about you.
Well that certainly is mutual.
But so we understand what you are saying.
As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Not the point I was making to Macallan
A point that apparently only Karnak can divine.
I’m finding this conversation distinctly unpleasant, so I’m going to mention to all people out there thinking about getting married that not registering will make your life more pleasant. If you absolutely have to register, then consider doing it on Amazon instead of at a certain nameless fancy dept store with a hellacious bridal registry web interface that hangs Firefox and won’t accept your stand mixer and, when the flatware you’ve selected turns out to be no longer available, recommends other flatware which turns out to be no longer available and, after subjecting you to various other frustrations, refuses to update the changes you thought you made.
Sebastian: But so we understand what you are saying.
I think you understand perfectly well what I’m saying, Sebastian, as you seem to understand perfectly well that on Friday last, American soldiers shot dead an Italian hero – and right-wing Americans prefer to carp and criticize rather than praise.
Riverbend:
rilkefan: in that vein, I will also recommend something my sister did. She and her husband are two of the best people you’d ever want to meet, and generally don’t have fights, but what with all the stress and everything, they found themselves on the verge of one while shopping for engagement rings. And at some point they just looked at each other, there in the store, and said: this is nuts. So they decided to take the money they would have spent on engagement rings and buy something nice for their house, something in the ‘this is really great, but neither of us would normally ever spend this kind of money’ category. It was a sort of chandelier, which I can’t describe except to say that the arms look sort of like amber colored alabaster drinking horns, only in intriguingly curved shapes, and it’s really, really extraordinary.
When I heard about this I thought: what a great idea. An engagement lighting fixture. And also great that they managed to do something interesting and good together in lieu of the narrowly averted fight.
Yes I THINK I understand perfectly what you are saying. I think you are insinuating that the US soldiers commited murder. A number of other people also think you have insinuated that. Some disagree. Your method is to insinuate and then deny. So for clarity:
As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Hilzoy, the nicest wedding I ever heard of was one where the two people involved decided they didn’t want a big elaborate party that would cost thousands (they were saving to put a deposit down on a house) yet couldn’t imagine either set of parents letting them just have a simple registry office wedding. (And neither of them wanted to let either set of parents pay for their wedding, either.)
So they just booked a date at a registry office, told no one, invited a couple of old friends of both of theirs up for a visit, and told them on arrival “We’re getting married tomorrow, you’re the witnesses”. Friends living locally were invited to dinner that evening, and told on arrival the reason for the dinner celebration.
The new husband came into work on Monday, and told us all (we knew he’d taken Friday off, of course, but not why) that he got married at the weekend.
I don’t know why, but this wedding I wasn’t even at has always charmed me to think about: two people who wanted to tie the knot doing it with the utmost simplicity, without any of the fanfare and partying and presents and ritual that we’ve come to associate with marriage. Just the thing itself.
hilzoy, we’d never agree on a chandelier. We’d like to have kids and raise them in a house, but we live in a pricey area, so the best thing would be just to register for square footage in the form of cash. Unfortunately that desire is hard to express.
Well, my sister’s husband had a solution to that problem too (it was before he met her, so much as I love her, I can’t see how to twist the facts to help her share credit on this one.)
They both do low-income housing, and spend a lot of time in low-income neighborhoods. My sister’s husband, whom I’ll call X, bought a house that was blighting an entire neighborhood. It had been built over 100 years before, back when the vacation destination for the rich in Boston was another part of Boston, and it was a mansion. But very shortly after it was built, trains arrived, more distant summer places became affordable, and the house began its slide into ruin. When he bought it, it was a total wreck. And he was fixing it up bit by bit, letting people stay rent-free in exchange for work; when my sister met him, he was about halfway done. (NB” Also a great solution to the ‘whose space to move into?” problem: if one person has space that has to be gutted, none of that ‘but it all feels like his/her space’ problem.)
They accelerated the end of the renovation process when my sister got pregnant with their first child, but the upshot of all this is: they now have the most extraordinary mansion in the middle of very high-priced Boston, and he got it cheap, intending mostly to help out the neighborhood.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the Bay area (or is it Silicon Valley?) has so many useful conversion projects. Plus, when he bought the house, there weren’t a lot of people doing it, so prices were way low.
Where did the 400 rounds factoid come from?
This apparently is a photo of the car.
Edward are you going to update your post with a photo of the car which ought to put an end to this.
Jes, can then get some rest because she truely needs it.
Not sure I feel better about the idea of such a surgical volley as indicated by what one can see of that car, if it is in fact the car in question. That looks more like an assassination attempt to me than something scatter-shot (not that I believe the soldiers at the checkpoint meant to kill Sgrena).
hilzoy, a half-acre-plot tear-down a few blocks away from me went for $3.3 M recently…
But how they got all 400 rounds through that one little hole…that’s a trick.
Either way, completely irrelevant to the question at hand. But heroic attempt at changing the subject noted, Jesurgislac.
There is nothing surgical about three to four hundred rounds. It would be interesting to know the standard engagement parameters when trying to stop an auto at a check point.
I’d just point out that this link describes US Army weapons and their rates of fire. The M2 machinegun ‘has a firing rate of 450 to 1,250 rounds per minute, depending on the version’. Or The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) “is capable of delivering a large volume of effective fire (up to 750 rounds per minute) at ranges up to 800 meters.” Anywhere from 20 seconds to a minute of sustained fire. However, if the squad had multiple automatic weapons, the time could shrink.
Also, the discussion is getting really snarky, I’d really appreciate it if everyone could try and forego pointscoring and just provide links and information. I pretty much know where everyone stands on this, so it doesn’t really help much. I also think that this would be a very good object lesson to try and see what facts emerge where rather than using the deaths to make a point. I would have made this point earlier, but I’ve been busy writing long posts that are destined to shut down threads…
Also, the discussion is getting really snarky, I’d really appreciate it if everyone could try and forego pointscoring
Me thinks thou protests too much!
Eddie should update the post with the picture which is the only proper course. As for Jes, I’ve already made my request when she first posted on this particular subject.
hilzoy, a half-acre-plot tear-down a few blocks away from me went for $3.3 M recently…
I bet we don’t live too far from each other.
The irony of the situation lay in the fact that Sgrena was probably safer with her abductors than she was with American troops.
Oh, brother. Anyone have a quick compare-and-contrast on the ratio of released to shot/beheaded/otherwise killed hostages?
You know the ones that put ‘Jessica’ in danger in the first place.
oh, you mean George Bush and his neo-con buddies…
rilkefan, do I take it this means you’re getting married? Congratulations and my best wishes.
Me thinks thou protests too much!
*sigh* Thou is the archaic form of you, and you wouldn’t say ‘you protests too much’, would you? Generally, it’s given with an emphatic ‘do’ (as in ‘Do try to understand the point.’), so that it should be ‘Dost protest’ (please don’t conjugate both verbs btw). One could drop ‘dost’ and just conjugate ‘protest’ (protesteth, I think, as it would be a weak verb in Middle English), but I would recommend you avoid it.
At any rate, this is my first post in the thread. And I’d like to think that I’m as consistent about civility as you are at being a troll. But on second thought, maybe not. Which is probably why you thought I was talking about you (JFTR, I actually wasn’t)
And I’d like to think that I’m as consistent about civility as you are at being a troll.
I am fascinated that you consider calling someone a “troll” to be civil. How’s that work?
Not for nothing 8 March 2005 8:32 pm was my first post. As for whom you were addressing, who cares. As for civility, please look up the definition (early, middle or modern English).
Come on, Mac, did my 9:11 observation (addressed to _everyone_) deserve Timmy’s snark? I’d also point out that the observation of “As for whom you were addressing, who cares.” seems to partake of the classical definition of a troll. But hey, I’m just delicate.
I don’t know, maybe Timmy is just mad that I haven’t thanked him for saving my mother’s family for the ‘Huns’.
Macallan: This apparently is a photo of the car.
Can we be sure this photo is any more authentic than the last one?
So, LJ, did Timmy save your mother’s family for the “Huns”, or did he save them from them?
Either way, he deserves at least a note.
Gack! =from= of course, I wouldn’t accuse Timmy of using some kind of twisted ends justifies means and sacrificing up my mother’s family to make a point.
I’m actually still waiting for Timmy to tell me exactly what he did to save Europe from ‘the Huns’. Not that I would question his citations or anything.
Nor should you:
They’re all certified by the National Archives of the Republic of South Maluku – you know, the copies with Ike’s autograph ………. 😉
Can we be sure this photo is any more authentic than the last one?
Your guess is as good as mine. I thought there were some wiggle words in the caption so that’s why I used “apparently” and provided the link with the caption.
I’m not questioning your diligence, Mac. Just we’ve been burned on this before.
I’m not questioning your diligence, Mac.
I would if I were you, can’t trust that Macallan dude. He’s evil!
ral – yep, getting hitched, thanks. I’d point you to the wedding page, which has a supposedly cute picture of us, but I’m not sure my fiancee has the same feeling about (this) online community as I do.
Mac, if you live around Palo Alto, let me know if you’re in need of a drink some time – I can even provide a home-cooked dinner given adequate notice.
yep, getting hitched, thanks
Open thread for rilkefan perhaps?
Slarti: Either way, completely irrelevant to the question at hand. But heroic attempt at changing the subject noted, Jesurgislac.
Your belief that Nicola Calipari’s death is irrelevant, and any attempt to talk about it is “changing the subject” is likewise noted, Slarti.
Okay, so far right-wing Americans in this thread are unanimous in not wanting to talk about American soldiers shooting Calipari dead, and only not killing Sgrena because Calipari shielded her with his own body.
Now why would that be?
Ah, I was leaving it alone. But since you want to re-engage:
Jesurgislac–As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Can we stop saying “you changed the subject, nya nya”? And can we stop asking people to sign loyalty oaths to ideas we know everyone accepts?
Thanks.
p.s. Can we stop reëngaging and talking past each other and generally pissing me off?
Rilke: And can we stop asking people to sign loyalty oaths to ideas we know everyone accepts?
Do we? I have no idea if right-wing Americans accept the idea that a non-American’s death is as terrible as an American’s death: all I know is that they’re really not showing much sign of believing it, right now: they’re far more interested in passionately defending Americans who kill non-Americans from any word of criticism.
As Sebastian has been routinely demonstrating, on this thread, on past threads. Why he does this, I have no idea.
Actually I’d love to talk about the worth of Italian lives and your misperceptions about what I think about them. Unfortunately I need to clarify something first because insinuations just don’t do it for me.
Jesurgislac–As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Unfortunately I need to clarify something first because insinuations just don’t do it for me.
No, you don’t need to “clarify something first”: you’re trying to score points with a repetitive and rhetorical question. If you are truly interested in what I think, you can read my journal entries on this subject, and then if you need any further clarification, you can ask questions there.
But as you’re playing the rhetorical questions game, you haven’t bothered, and I don’t suppose you ever will.
Actually I’d love to talk about the worth of Italian lives
There’s absolutely nothing stopping you doing that, Sebastian. Your assertion that you just can’t do it until I play along with your rhetoric game demonstrates that you put little value on making that effort.
Seb, Jes: would you mind taking this to email? Our participation, silent or otherwise, seems more-than-usually unnecessary for whatever game the two of you are playing.
Seb, Jes: would you mind taking this to email?
I have just invited Sebastian to read my journal and respond there, if he is (as he claims) interested to know what I think. As you suggest, I will refrain from responding to his rhetorical pointscoring here in future.
No. You are in the habit of making insinuations and pretending that you didn’t. I’m asking for clarification on your insinuations. Despite your apparently undeserved reputation for being forthright, you repeatedly dodge the question. Since on your journal, your definition of ‘accident’ is “US military patrols are in the habit of setting up ambushes and firing on civilian cars.” It is apparent the the answer to the question: “As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?” is probably yes, I don’t want to be open to the accusation that I am putting words in your mouth–your favorite way to sort-of retreat from inflammatory insinuation.
Therefore–As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Anarch, no I will not. I am sick of Jesurgislac’s constant game of insinuation followed by a “look at the mean conservatives pick on poor little me by putting words in my mouth” game. She plays it constantly and on nearly every topic. I have been attacked with it on a repeated basis for months.
I’m not putting up with it any more. If she wants to actually discuss things she is going to have to be clear. I am requesting clarity and it won’t just be on this post or this topic especially if she chooses to continue.
Sebastian: I am requesting clarity and it won’t just be on this post or this topic especially if she chooses to continue.
If you are requesting clarity on this topic, read my journal, find out exactly what I think, ask me serious questions.
If you are playing a point-scoring game, carry on as you’ve been doing.
Your choice, Sebastian. Yours entirely. Don’t try to put the blame for your choices on me.
Okay, so far right-wing Americans in this thread are unanimous in not wanting to talk about American soldiers shooting Calipari dead
Jes, when you started this conversation you raised the issue of intent (drive by shooting as well as ambush). Now that the story is unraveling trying to change the subject. Did I miss your apology on your initial comment.
I’m actually still waiting for Timmy to tell me exactly what he did to save Europe from ‘the Huns’.
Well LJ, I did nothing wasn’t even born but my family (uncles and aunts, the Canadians) did alot not that I’m taking credit. As for the reference, yes, nothing wrong with reminding Europeans about history, no snark just facts. I see you still haven’t look upped the definition.
votermom,
My point is that personally I don’t give a flying fig about these people, but I think that they deserved to get ransomned (spelling?).
Just as I suspected. You don’t understand the concept of not paying ransoms. Tell me… Given a choice between kidnapping an italian and an american, whom will they kidnap? Which country has set a precedent?
If I was a member of their family, I don’t really care what the ransom is used for
Maybe not. But the families of future victims would.
— that’s what law enforcement is for — to catch them when they use it for evil.
So, why make it even harder for them? First of all you are encouraging kidnapping for ransom by setting a precedent. Secondly, let me give you some perspective as to how far $10 million dollars can go.
For the sake of simplicity :
$10,000,000 / 1000 / 10 = $1000
You can hire a thousand mercenaries for $1000 a month, for 10 months.
Freedom, freedom, freedom. It’s everyone else’s privelege to die for it, apparently.
Sorry, but who forced her to travel to Iraq?
votermom,
My point is, before you blame people for paying ransom, imagine if it was your child, your sister, your mother who was kidnapped. Then be honest about what you would do.
I thought the ransom was paid by the gov’t, not the parents?
Jesurgislac,
I don’t think anyone would deny that Nicola Calipari’s death is a tragedy. The beef here is with the allegations that US soldiers murdered him, or shot at the car knowing that it contained “innocent civilians”.
Stan: The beef here is with the allegations that US soldiers murdered him, or shot at the car knowing that it contained “innocent civilians”.
The facts are outlined on my journal, Stan. If any of you are seriously interested in discussing them. *checks again*
Nope, so far it’s all point-scoring rhetoric right here.
Jes,
Of course I doubt that anyone senior will have to take responsibility for the policy of having US soldiers wait on frequently-used roads and ambush any vehicles they see that have olive-skinned people in them.cite
I rest my case. By the way, was it really three others in the car with Sgrena?
the life of the Italian journalist who had just been rescued from Iraqis holding her hostage was saved only by the heroism of the agent who was killed. cite
“Only”??? Any particular reason why you’ve omitted the huge ransom that was paid for her release?
Also you include:
Sgrena says the last words of her captors to her were: “Be careful because the Americans don’t want you to return.cite
Which is hearsay, but
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them
which is not, is not included? Do you not find the above relevant?
Does repeatedly referring to this incident as a “drive-by shooting,” making snide insinuations about the depths of peoples’ compassion, and keeping score of who is and isn’t talking about what count as “point-scoring rhetoric?” I just need to be sure so I can figure out who’s winning before I call my bookie.
I didn’t say his death was irrelevant. I said whatever Macallan, Sebastian, or anyone else on this thread felt about it is irrelevant to the question of whether you’re making a murder accusation.
Not even a very good attempt at changing the subject, Jesurgislac.
Oh, and a somewhat different perspective from Austin Bay, via the Reynolds.
Jes- Thanks for not answering their question. You are a good example for me.
I would ask the cons when they are going to stop beating on the Italians, but I know its liable to be fifty years or so. (Plus I know perfectly well they aren’t going to answer in a meaningful way.)
Sorry, but who forced her to travel to Iraq?
Should non-American unembedded journalists who go into Iraq, so that their country can get news from non-Amercian and non-Iraqi sources, sign waivers before they go there saying :”If I am abducted, please do not make any attempt to free me?”
How about aide workers like Margaret Hassan, should she have signed such a waiver also?
Just as I suspected. You don’t understand the concept of not paying ransoms.
The only choices has been beheading or ransom. Two bad choices, I pick ransom as the lesser evil. To pick beheading, is for me an immoral choice.
Tell me… Given a choice between kidnapping an italian and an american, whom will they kidnap? Which country has set a precedent?
I think they will kidnap the italian and kill the american immediately. Seriously, they see two unguarded foreign civilians, one an italian and one an american, they’re not going to say to the american, please go free. They’ll kill the american and keep the italian alive in case they can get money for him/her.
Neither will they pass an unguarded american on the street if they have a chance of killing him/her.
Would you rather be killed immediately or have a chance of being ransomed?
(Or they may torture the american on video as payback for all the you-know-whats. Depends on the particular group.)
I think you do not understand the concept of being seen as an oppressive invading infidel occupier.
If you are playing a point-scoring game, carry on as you’ve been doing.
That is certainly a puzzling comment.
You’ve made direct accusations of murder, and Seb has given you a chance to clarify. He was kind enough to offer you a simple and direct question on the subject you raised. Since you broached the subject and have already specifically implied murder, it is rather rude for you to continue to ignore the question.
Either answer it affirmatively and stand by your words, or be a grown up and apologize for the over the top rhetoric. Your current course is only digging the hole deeper.
Can we stop reëngaging and talking past each other and generally pissing me off?
I think that is an unfair comment because it assumes equivalence between Jes and Seb, which isn’t the case here.
Paying the ransom is to concede authority to those immoral enough to kidnap and threaten beheading in the first place. If that’s not incredibly immoral, I don’t know what is.
Paying the ransom is to concede authority to those immoral enough to kidnap and threaten beheading in the first place. If that’s not incredibly immoral, I don’t know what is.
So, if you are kidnapped in Iraq*, you don’t want us, or your govt, to pay a ransom for you. Okie dokie, fine by me.
But don’t make that choice for me, ok?
*(Or somewhere else and brought to Iraq)
Voter, would you rather be killed immediately or know your survival will cost the lives of other people and enrich your captors? That is what the people who are anti-ransom above are saying. That paying ransom to Barbary pirates leads to more pirates and more piracy. “Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute’ and all that.
That said, sometimes people or countries are going to pay to get their people back. It’s the choice rational people are going to make sometimes. This doesn’t mean they are cowardly as is sometimes intimated or immoral. Italy has troops on the ground. They are actively trying to oppose the kinds of people that would kidnap innocents. Paying a ransom makes their job (and the US’s) harder but they were willing to do it to save one of their own. Some people on this board may not like that(I don’t), but if not for the incident at an American checkpoint the Italian’s would have successfully gotten their reporter out. They felt paying was worth the pain it would bring they were willing to shoulder the burden that paying brought and they are paying even now.
votermom,
The only choices has been beheading or ransom. Two bad choices, I pick ransom as the lesser evil. To pick beheading, is for me an immoral choice.
Those $10 mill will go pretty far in financing future beheadings. But you just don’t get that.
I think you do not understand the concept of being seen as an oppressive invading infidel occupier.
You’re just not making any sense. Are you saying that they viewed the anti-american communist reporter as a an oppressive invading infidel occupier? That’s why they kidnapped her?
You’re just not making any sense. Are you saying that they viewed the anti-american communist reporter as a an oppressive invading infidel occupier? That’s why they kidnapped her?
You were asking if they were likely to kidnap italians or maericans in the future. I was trying to point out that just because they won’t be likely to kidnap americans doesn’t make american in Iraq any safer.
And yeah, they probably view her as an invading infidel, given that the Italians have 3000 troops in Iraq. Definitely one of the enemy, though a non-combatant.
So, if you are kidnapped in Iraq*, you don’t want us, or your govt, to pay a ransom for you.
Absolutely not. Anyone who isn’t willing to say the same thing has no business going to Iraq and endangering every other American there.
I’d rather the behavior that led to my abduction not be rewarded, quite frankly. Now, I can only make such claims easily and freely because I have not been abducted, but I can tell you that I would not feel morally comfortable were I to have a ransom paid for my freedom.
I can completely sympathize with your desire to have the ransom paid, and indeed in situations like this reporter. But I don’t think it’s particularily moral to insist your government engage in such dubious behavior.
And yeah, they probably view her as an invading infidel, given that the Italians have 3000 troops in Iraq. Definitely one of the enemy, though a non-combatant.
Okay… So, why didn’t they let her go once they found out that she’s an anti-american communist?
I wouldn’t want someone to pay a ransom for me, but there are people I would pay a ransom for.
That’s the difference.
Ahhh, Thanks Edward…
To answer you question Stan would take a Karnac but at a guess I’d say they didn’t release her because of the cash they thought they’d get. (They were right, too.) A lot of the kidnappings and beheadings are not being done by any political motivation at all. It’s simply about the cash sometimes.
Edward,
Would you pay a ransom for votermom?
Would you pay a ransom for votermom?
Well, put me on the spot, why don’t ya?
This is a good question, though. Where does one draw the line in this reasoning. The problem is, I don’t think reasoning plays into it when the kidnapped person is someone you love.
It’s like my argument about capital punishment, which I oppose. Folks say, what if your {loved one} were murdered, would you support death for someone then?
My response is, if my {loved one} were murdered, I’d track down the killer and bludgeon him myself, but that would be revenge, not justice. There’s a difference.
Amusingly ironic, that, given that meaningul answers aren’t forthcoming from the object of your admiration.
Edward,
My response is, if my {loved one} were murdered, I’d track down the killer and bludgeon him myself, but that would be revenge, not justice. There’s a difference.
But isn’t our justice system partly based on revenge? What’s the reasoning behind putting someone in jail for an accidental manslaughter?
Okay… So, why didn’t they let her go once they found out that she’s an anti-american communist?
I don’t understand the question. Being an anti-american communist does not preclude one from being an invading infidel. It’s the old “either your’re for us or you’re against us”. They wouldn’t have let her go without a ransom; they would have beheaded her.
Paying ransom encourages future kidnappings. Yes, most likely true.
Paying ransom in a country with no law and order is the only way to get a kidnapped victim back alive. Also, yes, most likely true.
Probability of kidnappers being brought to justice in said country, whether or not ransom is paid, and being subjected to any kind of punishment to deter other kidnappers. Probability extremely low.
Thus saith the magic 8 ball.
Bottom line: Want the kidnappings to stop? Get law and order back. But there’s not enough troops! Get allies. But they don’t want to be our allies any more! Give them good reasons to be our allies (which includes stop living down to our enemies worst accusations).
But isn’t our justice system partly based on revenge?
No, it’s based on justice, and currently we believe that justice is a dish best served cold. When people unrelated to the incident calmly examine all the evidence, let the defendant have his/her say, and let the lawyers explain the law to them. It is purposely not revenge, which is not about due process or the law, but emotion and baser instincts.
The reason for putting someone in jail for accidental manslaughter is to set an example to encourage other people to be more careful.
But isn’t our justice system partly based on revenge? What’s the reasoning behind putting someone in jail for an accidental manslaughter?
If it’s truly an accident, then I don’t think we do so, generally. What is punished in such cases is the negligence which set the conditions for the accident to happen, even if no harm was intended. It has nothing to do with revenge, the intent is to change behavior by holding people accountable for the results of their actions, even if such consequences were unintended but forseeable. But then, IANAL.
The definition of revenge:
re·venge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-vnj)
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es
1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.
See #1
Jesurgislac,
“If you are requesting clarity on this topic, read my journal, find out exactly what I think, ask me serious questions.
If you are playing a point-scoring game, carry on as you’ve been doing.”
I have read your two journal entries. I have in fact quoted from the second. They do not clearly answer my question. My question is not rhetorical. It is grounded in your use of terms such as ‘ambush’ and ‘drive by shooting’. It is in response to such lines as
These are your allegations. These are your insinuations. They were made at ObsidianWings, not just in your journal. You have a long established habit of making inflammatory insinuations and then pretending to be unfairly attacked when people respond as if you meant it.
Therefore:
Jesurgislac,
As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
Sebastian, we’ve been over this now. You want an answer, take it to my journal. You want to play games, carry on.
No, the whole problem is that we have specifically not gone over it.
You are playing games HERE. You need to respond to them HERE.
As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?
SH-
You’re asking Jes to make a technical legal distinction based on both the states of mind of the actors, which she has no way of knowing, and of the applicable criminal law, which is entirely obscure to me and I’m a lawyer. Her factual position is pretty clear (Jes – my apologies if I’m wrong about the ‘pretty clear’ bit, and I’m mischaracterizing you):
US soldiers at checkpoints have on many occasions, including this one, killed innocent civilians. Whatever process US soldiers use to distinguish cars containing non-dangerous civilians from insurgents/suicide bombers/people who they have good reason to shoot at, it is severely flawed, in that it produces many false positives, which result in dead civilians. Presumably, the soldiers in question have the same information that we do, or more, and thus know about the false positives. It seems likely, then, that a US soldier at a checkpoint deciding whether to fire on a car goes through some version of the following thought process: “That car meets the standards I’m using for a car I should fire on (not going slowly enough, stopping in the wrong place, whatever). I know that my standards are flawed, and that there’s a good chance that the occupants of the car are harmless civilians. Nonetheless, I find that chance acceptable, and choose to fire anyway.” The soldier has intentionally chosen to kill someone who he knows is likely to be an innocent civilian.
For a civilian security guard in the US, defending a private home against a threat of armed attack, the above facts would be likely sufficient to get a murder conviction, depending on the state and on the details of the security guard’s state of mind. That doesn’t necessarily make the same facts murder in Iraq — there are circumstances under which the intentional killing of innocent civilians is permitted by the law of war (e.g., a munitions factory is located in the basement of an orphanage. Bombing the factory is not a war crime regardless of the fact that it will inevitably kill the orphans.)
Jes’s position on the facts is clear; that she regards the actions of the US soldiers, and of those who authorize them to act in this way, as deplorable and wrongful (as do I) is also clear. Whether those actions constitute ‘murder’ under the legal circumstances in question is a highly technical question of law, and demanding that she take a position on it is unreasonable.
(I do apologize for helping stretch this out. I tried to stay out of it, and just couldn’t.)
Sebastian: You need to respond to them HERE.
No. I don’t.
Sebastian,
I believe she’s already responded.
“You’re asking Jes to make a technical legal distinction based on both the states of mind of the actors, which she has no way of knowing, and of the applicable criminal law, which is entirely obscure to me and I’m a lawyer.”
I’m asking her to clarify her thinking. She has made repeated claims on the state of mind of the actors–therefore on that point it is not difficult to ask her to continue (or not choose not to continue) doing so. The concept of murder is not a hypertechnical legal question–laymen are quite capable of talking about it intelligently.
Your take on her position does not fit with her accusastions of ‘ambush’ and her suggestion that the US soldiers don’t bother trying to give a warning. As such, your answer is not self-evidently similar in any particular respect to hers.
Murder is not a hyper-technical legal concept. The concept of murder is easily understood and has been around for at least 4000 years in almost every culture. Legal constructs have grown up around the concept of murder, not the reverse.
Ambush (Jesurgislac imputes mental state with inflammatory language)
Intentional Killing (Jesurgislac imputes mental state)
Intentional Lack of Warning (Jesurgislac imputes mental state)
Drive by Shooting (Inflammatory Language with an implied mental state)
She has also asked me questions about whether or not I value Italian lives while whining about point scoring.
In short she has engaged in her entirely typical game of making hugely inflammatory accusations, engaging in ugly insinuations, and then whining when called on it by pretending that she did none of the above. In order to avoid getting sucked into that game again, I have asked for clarification on the inflammatory accusations (ambush, lack of warning, drive-by-shooting) and the insinuation that goes with them. Instead of answering, she plays the martyr for even being asked.
votermom,
I don’t understand the question. Being an anti-american communist does not preclude one from being an invading infidel.
Uhm. Giving her position, the position of her paper, and the position of her party… The above does not compute.
Intentional Killing: This is fairly obvious — if you fire a deadly weapon at someone and they die, and you know how deadly weapons work, it was an intentional killing. That has nothing to do with the sort of justifications necessary to establish whether a killing was murder.
Ambush, Intentional Lack of Warning: I’m going to assume that we’re aware of the same facts here. Killings of innocent civilians by US soldiers at checkpoints are have happened, as here, a significant number of times. There is no reason to believe those civilians were all suicidal. Therefore, whatever warnings there were telling the civilians how to navigate the checkpoints were insufficient. Whoever is tasked with designing and implementing the pre-checkpoint warning systems has designed and implemented them in such a way that they are insufficient to actually warn a significant number of civilians, and, to the extent that the designer/implementer of those systems knows about the resulting civilian deaths and has not remedied the systems, has done so knowingly. A checkpoint that will result in the shooting of innocent civilians due to the fact that they were unwarned of how to safely navigate it may quite reasonably be described as an ambush. Jes’s terminology here is perfectly reasonable.
Drive-by shooting: Not sure what Jes meant here — she’s British, and I think suffered an American-slang failure.
Murder is not a hyper-technical legal concept. The concept of murder is easily understood and has been around for at least 4000 years in almost every culture. Legal constructs have grown up around the concept of murder, not the reverse.
Distinguishing murder from killing in war is a hyper-technical enterprise. Under war-time conditions, a soldier is both legally and morally permitted to kill under circumstances that would unambiguously constitute murder in peace-time. A soldier may under the proper circumstances intentionally kill a person who poses no direct threat to him at that moment, and have done nothing wrong. The types of legal reasoning that define the boundaries, for a civilian killing, between a justified killing (e.g., self-defense), an unjustified but excusable killing (e.g., justifiably mistaken self-defense), and a murder do not in any simple way map onto the boundaries between a legitimate killing in war, a killing that constitutes a war crime, and a simple murder.
I think that the US military has set up these checkpoints in a way that exposes civilians to an unacceptable risk of harm, and that the soldiers who staff the checkpoints are acting wrongfully when they, even under orders, intentionally kill people with the knowledge that there is a good chance that those people are harmless civilians. My understanding of the legal situation is that it is not accurate as a matter of law to describe these killings as murder — that is, that there is no likelihood that the soldiers in question could be prosecuted as such. The fact that the soldiers couldn’t be prosecuted for murder does not mean that that the killings weren’t intentional and wrongful, and that the checkpoints were not knowingly designed so as to lack sufficient warnings.
Uhm. Giving her position, the position of her paper, and the position of her party… The above does not compute.
Do we know if her kidnappers read her newspaper, or care what politics her newspaper espouses? We know that her kidnappers saw that she was not Iraqi (that would be obvious), knew that they found out she was Italian. Italy is part of the coalition, which, ahem, invaded Iraq. Hence invader. She is not muslim, is she? Hence infidel.
votermom,
They didn’t hold her for a day or two. They found out who she was soon enough, and they held her anyway.
Apparently Ms. Sgrena was certain she wouldn’t get kidnapped.
Lizardbreath, I don’t ask Jesurgislac to make a definitive ruling on what the Hague ought to believe. I ask “As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?” That question is completely answerable by a layman.
You brush way to quickly by ‘Ambush civilians’.
You, make some perfectly legitmate points about checkpoints.
Jesurgislac on the other hand is talking about ambushes.
I would be perfectly willing to talk with you about the pros and cons of different checkpoint procedures.
From Jesurgislac I need to know what she is alleging. I wouldn’t want to waste time talking about different checkpoint procedures when she is talking about ambushes. Since she is so free with inflammatory language, and so willing to pretend that her inflammatory language does not mean its clear implications, I am forced to ask for clarification.
Instead of responding, even with a “how dare you, obviously the answer is no” she obfuscates. She attempts to distract attention from the question by attacking my humanity and asking if I am aware that an Italian hero died. I answered her question and then reasked mine. She continues not to answer. I ask again. Then she accuses my of trying to score points while suggesting that I don’t care about killing Italians.
LizardBreath, thank you for the very cogent analysis.
They didn’t hold her for a day or two. They found out who she was soon enough, and they held her anyway.
I know. I mean, what’s your point? Who thinks they would have released her? Who the heck gets released alive without ransom over there? Either you pay or you’re dead (or sometimes you pay AND you’re dead).
That’s what I’m saying — the kidnappers see everyone who is not them as fair targets, either for kidnapping or killing.
Apparently Ms. Sgrena was certain she wouldn’t get kidnapped.
So, she’s older and wiser now. Now she knows that Iraqis WILL kidnap her and Americans WILL shoot at her.
LizardBreath, thank you for the very cogent analysis
ditto.
I think that the US military has set up these checkpoints in a way that exposes civilians to an unacceptable risk of harm
Last I heard something like 500 US soldiers have been killed at checkpoints and on Iraq roads, so the risk borne by the soldiers exponentially more than innocent civilians.
votermom,
Who the heck gets released alive without ransom over there? Either you pay or you’re dead (or sometimes you pay AND you’re dead).
That’s what I’m saying — the kidnappers see everyone who is not them as fair targets, either for kidnapping or killing.
Everyone? Not just the “invading infidel”?
Macallan: Last I heard something like 500 US soldiers have been killed at checkpoints and on Iraq roads, so the risk borne by the soldiers exponentially more than innocent civilians.
Do we have figures on civilians killed or injured at checkpoints?
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.
Hmm.
Oh, I didn’t register that you weren’t limiting it to checkpoints. Do we then have figures on the number of civilians killed by coalition troops at checkpoints and on the roads?
I ask “As you understand the term, are you alleging murder?” That question is completely answerable by a layman.
As I said in my earlier post, no it isn’t. Intentionally killing a person with the full knowledge that there’s a good chance they are innocent and pose no threat to you is murder if you’re a civilian. Under a lot of circumstances, it’s not murder if you’re a soldier.
I don’t know what the the purpose of your repeated question is, but I wouldn’t answer it if I were Jes. Because ‘murder’ isn’t a legal concept that fits neatly into an analysis of the actions of soldiers acting under orders for military rather than private ends, answering either that the killings of civilians in question are or are not murder would have very little meaning and would leave her open to a dishonest rhetorical attack that would advance the discussion not at all. (If she says ‘murder’, the avenue of attack is a technical discussion of the law of war proving that the killing of civilians by soldiers in the service of military ends can’t properly be called murder, coupled with an attack on her for failing to sympathize with those poor kids over there fearing for their lives at the hands of suicide bombers. If she says ‘not murder’, the response is ‘Ah. So you concede that the soldiers were fully justified in thinking that the civilians they killed were suicide bombers/insurgents/whatever’.) I have no reason to believe that you intended to pull this kind of rhetorical stunt, but you aren’t the only person posting on this thread — once Jes has placed the killings in question into a legal category that really doesn’t apply, anyone can do the same thing. ‘Murder’ really isn’t a useful word in the context of this conversation.
At this point, I’m out — I really didn’t intend to stretch out this portion of the conversation any longer.
Gromit- We don’t have those figures, because the US military has a policy of not counting Iraqi deaths, and not cooperating with efforts by others to do so. I just googled it, and couldn’t get a total number. The best I can do is note that an Iraqi coroner said (according to a Guardian reporter) that 40% of the deaths he dealt with were from people killed at checkpoints. If this is true given Iraq’s excess mortality of 100k since invasion suggests thousands dead at checkpoints.
Before cons tell me that the Guardian is an untrustworthy rag I want to note that no source they would regard as trustworthy is likely to publish casualty figures given that the US doesn’t want them to.
For the record, I think that when two people both play “first you have to say X before I can say Y,” both are acting in an idiotic fashion. Neither is justifiable, and neither seem explainable as other than infantile pride (or worse).
Interesting to read Jes debating Ginmar, though.
Mac – Care to point us towards a cite? According to the latest numbers available at Iraq Casualty Count, US troops have incurred a total of 1064 combat related fatalities since April 6, 2003. If the 500 number is accurate, that means that over 45% of these combat deaths have occurred at checkpoints, which is so staggeringly high as to be hard to believe. And, of those fatalities, how many were due to IEDs or car bombs, as opposed to direct, armed attack by insurgents?
stanls- Your abc link crashed my comp. I’d like a show of hands though. Who thinks that US military spokesmen should be considered credible in cases like this? Who doesn’t?
“If she says ‘not murder’, the response is ‘Ah. So you concede that the soldiers were fully justified in thinking that the civilians they killed were suicide bombers/insurgents/whatever’.)”
I can talk with you about checkpoints although you put it in the not murder category. I have a sneaking suspicion that Jesurgislac really does believe it is murder.
I note you ignore the ambush rhetoric. Essentially you are ignoring the differences between Jesurgislacs arguments and your own and then treating the argument as if it were a discussion with you rather than her. You haven’t alleged ambush. You haven’t alleged that soldiers don’t bother with warnings. You haven’t alleged any of that. I know you don’t classify the checkpoint deaths as murders. I do not know that about Jesurgislac. In fact I strongly suspect quite the opposite and have actual words from Jesurgislac which strongly support that.
Frank, re: “Before cons tell me that the Guardian is an untrustworthy rag I want to note that no source they would regard as trustworthy is likely to publish casualty figures given that the US doesn’t want them to.”
I would note that even if we accept the Lancet figure, statistically relying on one coroner’s figure (even if completely truthful) doesn’t get you the right figures. The Lancet study was countrywide, and checkpoints are much more prevalent around Baghdad than they are almost anywhere else in the country.
Frank,
stanls- Your abc link crashed my comp. I’d like a show of hands though. Who thinks that US military spokesmen should be considered credible in cases like this? Who doesn’t?
Well, if you want to play that game… Who thinks that an anti-American communist journalist should be considered credible in cases like this?
“Last I heard something like 500 US soldiers have been killed at checkpoints and on Iraq roads, so the risk borne by the soldiers exponentially more than innocent civilians.”
What’s your cite for reliable figures for innocent civilians killed at checkpoints and on Iraqi roads, that you ground this observation in?
You haven’t alleged ambush. You haven’t alleged that soldiers don’t bother with warnings.
Erm… Rereading my prior post on this, I was trying so hard to be non-inflammatory in tone that I may have understated the position I was taking. From what I’ve read on the subject, my current belief is that the warnings before these checkpoints are in many cases in the range between culpably inadequate and entirely lacking. I am completely comfortable with characterizing a ‘checkpoint’ in which soldiers kill passers-by without adequate warning or instruction on how the innocent may avoid being killed as an ambush.
You appear to believe that there is some significant distance between my position and Jes’s on this point — while our styles of rhetoric are different, I haven’t seen her say much, if anything, on this issue that I substantively disagreed with. And now I really am out.
That’s what I’m saying — the kidnappers see everyone who is not them as fair targets, either for kidnapping or killing.
Everyone? Not just the “invading infidel”?
My guess is that from the kidnappers pov, everyone in Iraq who is not Iraqi, who is associated with coalition countries through accident of birth or nationality, who is not muslim, is an invading infidel.
It’s part of the psychology behind identifying themselves as waging a defensive jihad. Just as US govt is trying to condition Americans into seeing all Middle Eastern muslims as dangerous potential terrorists, so is their side conditioning their combatants into seeing all non-ME non-muslims as fingers of the great Satan.
Oh! Do you think I consider the targets invading infidels? No, I don’t. But I don’t see things the way the Iraqi combatants see things, and I try to acknowledge that they have a different worldview.
Mac – Care to point us towards a cite?
I’d love to, except that is a figure I heard on one of the news shows this week. I thought it was CNN, but I couldn’t find a link searching their site. That is why I clearly labeled it as hearsay.
My assumption would be that the majority of those fatalities is from car bombs and IED, but again that is merely an assumption on my part.
“I haven’t seen her say much, if anything, on this issue that I substantively disagreed with. And now I really am out.”
Easy to say because Jesurgislac’s substantive position is intentionally non-precise. You can choose to agree or disagree with her principally based on what you personally want to believe about what she is saying. She uses this to cultivate a false aura of victimhood when people dare to take her words seriously.
Which is why I ask her to clarify her position.
Which is why she does not.
votermom,
My guess is that from the kidnappers pov, everyone in Iraq who is not Iraqi, who is associated with coalition countries through accident of birth or nationality, who is not muslim, is an invading infidel.
Hm. Zarqawi is not an Iraqi. By the way, what makes you think that the kidnappers are Iraqis themselves?
Just as US govt is trying to condition Americans into seeing all Middle Eastern muslims as dangerous potential terrorists, so is their side conditioning their combatants into seeing all non-ME non-muslims as fingers of the great Satan.
Nice analogy there.
Hm. Zarqawi is not an Iraqi. By the way, what makes you think that the kidnappers are Iraqis themselves?
But I’m pretty sure he’s muslim, so there. phhbbttt.
🙂
Go to icasualties and apply “cause of death detail” filter – 20% casualties by IED, 9% by vehicle accident, etc. 20% of fatalities in Baghdad – see the “place of death” filter.
Stanls- So once again I ask a resonable question only to get a counter question. I used to fall for that sadly.
I asked you first.
Last I heard something like 500 US soldiers have been killed at checkpoints and on Iraq roads, so the risk borne by the soldiers exponentially more than innocent civilians.
Last I heard, the casualty rate of innocent civilians far exceeds the number of US soldiers killed or injured at checkpoint, so I’d say the risk is the inverse to what you propose. Exponentially so, seeing as we’re being accurate.
Votermom, I think you are falling into the same trap as Stan. This kidnapping could have had NOTHING to do with politics or jihad or infidels. A whole bunch of criminals were released as the Iraqi government fell. These guys want cash and most likley really enjoy the lawlessness that has resulted from the war.
If you want money who has it? Other Iraqi’s probably don’t have a million bucks lying around but those ‘infidels’ countries might.
Some of what is going on in Iraq is simple criminality for it’s own sake, some is really insurgency, some is terrorism and it all mixes together against the US and it’s allies.
I’m simply saying that not everything is political and even if it is, money is sometimes the over-riding factor.
Frank,
If you are going to give the benefit of the doubt to an anti-American communist reporter, then why not extend the same consideration to the US military?
Sgrena, herself, admitted that the driver almost lost control of the car. I’ld also like to see the investigators confirm that 300-400 rounds were fired into that car. Let’s wait for the investigation to conclude.
Crockpot, that’s the point that I was trying to make by pointing out the Sgrena’s communist credentials.
[pedantic mode] “exponentially” would indicate a rate of change, not an absolute number.
[back to the topic] LizardBreath speaks for me on this. I also posted a non-inflammatory comment way back, by which I stand.
Last I heard, the casualty rate of innocent civilians far exceeds the number of US soldiers killed or injured at checkpoint, so I’d say the risk is the inverse to what you propose. Exponentially so, seeing as we’re being accurate.
Really? You can back up a claim of exponentially more than 500 innocent civilians being killed by US soldiers at checkpoints. Or weren’t you following the thread?
Stanls- Do you happen to know if this is the same spokesman who told us we were not fighting a guerilla war in Iraq?
If you have some evidence that this reporter is a liar that the military hasn’t had an opportunity to tamper with, I might consider her on par with the spokesman. Otherwise I might consider the I.G. report worth looking at with an open mind, but Army spokesman are liars without concience.
These guys want cash and most likley really enjoy the lawlessness that has resulted from the war.
I agree with you. And I thought that goes with what I said. If the kidnappings are to stop, law and order has to be brought back into Iraq. This chaos is too costly in lives all around.
Until law and order is brought back, the only recourse that crime victims might have to survive kidnapping is to pay ransom. Even that is iffy, seeing as they can get shot at checkpoints after they’ve been released.
Oh, I strongly recommend listening to that Mark Danner interview if you want to get a taste of what it’s like to drive in Iraq. It’s just in the first few minutes of the show.
Really? You can back up a claim of exponentially more than 500 innocent civilians being killed by US soldiers at checkpoints. Or weren’t you following the thread?
What, we’re suddenly backing stuff up?
Stan, just out of curiousity, why do you keep mentioning the fact that Sgrena is a communist? What bearing does it have?
What, we’re suddenly backing stuff up?
Hey I didn’t ask for a cite; just wondering if you are asserting 250,000 or 125,000,000 or something higher.
double +
It all began with (to votermom) You’re just not making any sense. Are you saying that they viewed the anti-american communist reporter as a an oppressive invading infidel occupier? That’s why they kidnapped her?, but now it’s just for my enjoyment.
I should probably add that I am even more amused by her claim that she was fired on by tanks.
Sadly, any civilian casualty figures mentioned here to support arguments are usually ridiculed and the motives and/or ethics of the poster are called into question, so I’m afraid that I can’t back it up without my feelings getting hurt. But I had thought we’d started pulling figures out our nether regions to support our opinions. I apologize for the error.
I suggest purchasing a new sarcasm filter; your old one seems to be out of order.
What does “exponentially more than 500 innocent civilians being killed” mean, anyway? Beyond gibberish?
I should probably add that I am even more amused by her claim that she was fired on by tanks.
Reports that I’ve read indicate that the car was fired on by an armoured vehicle, which resemble tanks.
What does “exponentially more than 500 innocent civilians being killed” mean, anyway? Beyond gibberish?
It’s gibberish, Gary. What does “…so the risk borne by the soldiers exponentially more than innocent civilians…” mean, for that matter?
I suggest purchasing a new sarcasm filter; your old one seems to be out of order.
Thank you for the criticism and suggestion.
Ohhhh. Gary was talking to Macallan.
So sorry, Gary. Profound apologies.
Stan LS: I should probably add that I am even more amused by her claim that she was fired on by tanks.
Amused? Why are you amused at the confused account of a civilian who was very nearly killed by our soldiers?
Oh, I get it. She’s a communist. Therefore, her near death is a laughing matter. Good show, Stan.
So, on rilkefan’s suggestion, I’ve waded through about 150 of the 400+ very depressing CentCom and DoD releases for US troops KIA via hostile means other than small arms fire, RPG, mortar attack, etc. So far, I’ve found 3 who have been killed at a checkpoint by a car bomb, 1 by a suicide bomber, and 1 who was run down by a truck. That’s 5. I’m guessing that the 500 number is off by at least one order of magnitude, if not two.
Stan, but as the woman has just been freed from what must have been a harrowing situation
Not according to her. She made sure to thank her captors.
I’d say that she’s allowed a bit of post-traumic stress leeway, wouldn’t you?
Those were my sentiments initially, however, the fact that she was in the state of mind to fire off a column in under 48 hours… Well, you get my drift.
Amused? Why are you amused at the confused account of a civilian who was very nearly killed by our soldiers?
I get it now! US soldiers are cold blooded killers who ambush innocent civilians, but reporters, with prior agenda, who give suspect accounts (car almost loosing control @ 25mph?? 300-400 rounds – have you seen the photo???) are merely “confused”.
US soldiers are cold blooded killers who ambush innocent civilians…
Did someone say that? Or is it a pet strawman talking? I think that I, at least, went to some lengths to say that the soldiers involved were emphatically not cold blooded killers, and I believe that it was Jes who, risking biting derision from Macallan, who mentioned that several of them apologized at the scene.
double+,
It was in response to Gromit’s strawman.
Me: I’d say that she’s allowed a bit of post-traumic stress leeway, wouldn’t you?
Stan: Those were my sentiments initially, however, the fact that she was in the state of mind to fire off a column in under 48 hours… Well, you get my drift.
Are you under the impression that stress causes an inability to type?
It was in response to Gromit’s strawman.
Ah. Dueling strawmen.
double +,
This – “23423javoajknmf23r23q98” requires no effort.
This – “23423javoajknmf23r23q98” requires no effort.
Neither does having an opinion and writing it down.
double +,
And just a few minutes ago you were talking about a leeway…
Reading the newsgroups… Here’s a gem:
I find it hard to believe that Margaret Hassan, for instance, should
have been killed as part of an American propaganda ploy. But I find
it equally hard to believe that she was killed by Iraqi terrorists.
The woman was a saint!
Why should anybody want to kill Margaret Hassan?
Sebastian: Easy to say because Jesurgislac’s substantive position is intentionally non-precise.
I’ve repeatedly invited you to come over to my journal where I’ve posted at length, with links, about what I think about this, and discuss it with me there. If there’s anything you fail to understand about my position having read my journal entries, you are welcome to ask me questions there to clarify it for you.
If you feel more like doing this when you cool down, you’re still welcome.
But I decline to take part in your point-scoring game here.
Jes, no mention of ransom at any of those two entries, no mention of this admission by Sgrena:
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 links to the photos of the car she was in, at which, she claims, 300-400 rounds were fired. According to her, the car was destroyed.
None of the above is relevant to the story, right?
I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the precise wording of that interview, Stan, given that English is not her first language.
As to the photo, again, is there any confirmation that that is in fact the car in question? Even the captions hedge, saying only that it is “said” to be the car.
JerryN: A futile question, I’m sure, but do the reports contain any information about the number of Iraqi casualties at checkpoints or on roads?
Gromit, which particular wording would you like leeway with? Also, if that proves to be the actual car involved, will you concede that something is fishy about 300-400 rounds figure?
So, on rilkefan’s suggestion, I’ve waded through about 150 of the 400+ very depressing CentCom and DoD releases for US troops KIA via hostile means other than small arms fire, RPG, mortar attack, etc. So far, I’ve found 3 who have been killed at a checkpoint by a car bomb, 1 by a suicide bomber, and 1 who was run down by a truck. That’s 5. I’m guessing that the 500 number is off by at least one order of magnitude, if not two.
Really? Because in the link he provided, just at a glance it says 320 died from IED attacks and 54 from car bombs, which are just some of the types of attacks the checkpoints are trying to thwart.
Mac- I don’t know if you know this but IEDs don’t drive cars. In fact IEDs as immoble comand activated land mines don’t move at all. So they are unlikely to threaten stationary personel. Maybe you need to revisit your numbers.
Did she claim 300-400 rounds hit her car or that 300-400 rounds were fired?
Because in the link he provided, just at a glance it says 320 died from IED attacks and 54 from car bombs, which are just some of the types of attacks the checkpoints are trying to thwart.
Anyone want to play “Spot the logical flaw” in this one?
Gee thanks for that helpful post Frank. Perhaps you’d like to explain how IEDs get from place A to place B? Or do the insurgents have some sort of technology that makes IEDs magically appear and no longer needing… gee, what’s that word… oh, yeah…transportation.
Your snark fails to obscure the fact that IED kills don’t come from cars. The US has no way to distinguish an IED going off in a car from any other kind of car bomb.
Did you just pull the 500 number out of your behind?
Frank,
Did she claim 300-400 rounds hit her car or that 300-400 rounds were fired?
Good point. She does claim that they were going 25-30mph, so I’ld imagine the car would look a *lot* worse for 300-400 rounds fired.
Stan LS- That would depend on how good shots they were. Also she probably thought any warning shots were aimed at her.
Did Jes ever apologize for her comments about American soldiers?
Did Jes ever apologize for her comments about American soldiers?
No of course not, but don’t interrupt Frank, he’s hunt’n wabbits!
Are they “Jimmy Carter death beast” wabbits?
No “evil con” wabbits!
Actually, Frank, a VBIED is a “vehicle-borne” IED. I’m unclear as to how icasualties.org (which presumably gets its cause of death categories from CentCom) distinguishes amongst IED’s, car bombs, and suicide car bombs, but I suspect there is a bit of blurring of these categories, because 13 coalition deaths from suicide car bombs sounds pretty low given the amount of attention this problem has gotten.
Macallan, to be clear, are we talking about numbers of deaths at checkpoints, or on the roads in general? You seem to switch between the two in the comments above. And once we establish that, what are the numbers of civilian deaths you are using for comparison?
And, Stan, my point with regard to language is that seizing on words like “destroyed” might be a bit premature if that is a bad translation of the way she might have phrased it in Italian. Perhaps she did mean “destroyed”, or perhaps she simply meant “disabled”. And I have no opinion on the number of rounds. I’m not even clear who made that claim at this point. I originally thought it came from a party who was not involved in the incident, but I welcome any more definitive info. But anyway, the mind reels at the sheer number of conflicting accounts being offered, so I’m not inclined to completely write off any particular one just yet. (Except maybe the 100 MPH claim. That just sounds nutty.)
“evil con” wabbits
Oh My!
According to her: Sgrena has rejected the U.S. military’s account of the shooting, claiming instead that American soldiers gave no warning before they opened fire.
Also, via Jawa report:
Guardian:
Italian reconstruction of the incident is significantly different. Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle.
BBC
We had no signal. We were just on the way to the airport. They started to shoot at us without any light or signal.
Also
When the driver said “they’re attacking us”, one of the [agents] tried to say we’re Italians but it was impossible to get out of the car because the car was under this rain of fire.
Does that imply that they stopped but the soldiers kept on firing?
Or At that point, a rain of fire and bullets hit us, shutting up forever the cheerful voices of a few minutes earlier.
The driver started yelling that we were Italians. “We are Italians, we are Italians.”
They were shot at, at a shouting distance? Quite a chunk of those 300-400 shots would most likely hit the car… IMHO, anyway.
Macallan, to be clear, are we talking about numbers of deaths at checkpoints, or on the roads in general? You seem to switch between the two in the comments above. And once we establish that, what are the numbers of civilian deaths you are using for comparison?
No switching that I know of, the quote I heard last night, was I think a Pentagon source, and was “500 had been killed at checkpoint and roads” or something like that. I’m assuming that nobody thinks the checkpoints are set up to provide targets for terrorists, they are there to prevent deaths on the roads and from suicide car bombs. IEDs are generally planted on roadways and such.
The point was in response to the risk of innocent civilians because of the checkpoints versus the risks borne by soldiers that necessitate the checkpoints. I found this on civilian casualties:
So if the quote I heard last night was correct and the above is correct, that would be 500 to 25. Admittedly, 22 would be exponential not 25.
I might make a good Elmer Fudd at that. However, I know Bugs Bunny and you sir are no Bugs Bunny.
Holy crap! Can’t believe I missed (via Michelle Malkin) this one:
Suddenly as they were talking to each other without any signal a flashlight was switched on and three or four hundred bullets were shot towards the car. Giuliana told me she collected handfuls of bullets on the seats.
Michelle points out:
This doesn’t pass the smell test. Any bullet shot into the car would have either passed through the vehicle, been fragmented beyond recognition, or become imbedded into part of the car.
If she’s talking about spent casings, those would have ended up at the feet of the soldiers doing the shooting. (I assume she is not saying that the soldiers were inside the car with her.)
Makes sense.
Giuliana told me she collected handfuls of bullets on the seats.
Really? I wonder exactly whose “friendly fire” we’re talking about here.
Mac- You are still ignoring the fact that roadside deaths from IEDs are completely unrelated to cars approaching checkpoints.
First the car and now this
Thanks Elmer.
Me: Macallan, to be clear, are we talking about numbers of deaths at checkpoints, or on the roads in general? You seem to switch between the two in the comments above. And once we establish that, what are the numbers of civilian deaths you are using for comparison?
Macallan: No switching that I know of, the quote I heard last night, was I think a Pentagon source, and was “500 had been killed at checkpoint and roads” or something like that.
then later on,
Macallan: The point was in response to the risk of innocent civilians because of the checkpoints versus the risks borne by soldiers that necessitate the checkpoints.
You switched right there. You were talking about the number of soldiers killed at checkpoints and on roads, and then you switch to talking just about civilian deaths at checkpoints. You are comparing apples and oranges. Are you not aware that troops are engaging civilian vehicles on the roads as well?
Moreover, I’m really puzzled why you think HRW’s report, combined with press coverage, is going to offer anything approaching a comprehensive account of civilian deaths at checkpoints. Those are just the ones that got publicized.
Heh…
“I want to thank the Iraqi resistance for treating me well and respecting me. I was kidnapped only because these people, who are well prepared and well-bred, are determined to achieve their objective: that is freeing their country from the occupation. I was kidnapped also because I passed by Nassiriya during the occupation”.
This is ridiculous! They should be paying her the $10 mil.
You switched right there.
No I didn’t switch. I’m comparing the reason for the checkpoints with the risk of the checkpoints to civilians, and have consistently done so on this point. What switching? If there is no risk to coalition forces on the roadways, if there is no need to intercept IED’s, suicide bombers, etc. then there isn’t any need to for the checkpoints.
Moreover, I’m really puzzled why you think HRW’s report, combined with press coverage, is going to offer anything approaching a comprehensive account of civilian deaths at checkpoints. Those are just the ones that got publicized.
Who the hell said it was comprehensive? You request info and I provided all I’d found so far. What’s up with that?
Macallan, you originally said:
Last I heard something like 500 US soldiers have been killed at checkpoints and on Iraq roads, so the risk borne by the soldiers exponentially more than innocent civilians.
Now you are saying this:
I’m comparing the reason for the checkpoints with the risk of the checkpoints to civilians, and have consistently done so on this point.
You originally compared the risks borne by soldiers to those borne by civilians. And when you finally came up with numbers, you were comparing risks to soldiers at checkpoints and on the roads to the risks to civilians only at checkpoints, and only those incidents that make the papers, at that! This is not only not consistent, it is not a point that makes any sense.
Who the hell said it was comprehensive? You request info and I provided all I’d found so far. What’s up with that?
You made the comparison between what are presumably comprehensive numbers for coalition troops and the numbers you came up with for civilians. Now, either those civilian numbers are also reasonably comprehensive, or there is no meaningful comparison to be made. Which is it?
or there is no meaningful comparison to be made.
BINGO! What’s the potential for civilian deaths if the checkpoints are eliminated and the terrorists are free to move (with their deadly cargo) around?
You made the comparison between what are presumably comprehensive numbers for coalition troops and the numbers you came up with for civilians. Now, either those civilian numbers are also reasonably comprehensive, or there is no meaningful comparison to be made. Which is it?
No, I used the relatively incomprehensive numbers that were the only ones available. I’ve been upfront about that and stated several qualifiers about the numbers, either you’re not reading what I write or you’re just being disingenuous.
Why don’t you re-read the thread starting from the comment that prompted my bringing up the risk to coalition troops in the first place:
You’ll notice that his point was exclusive to the civilians at checkpoints, and that you’re the one not making sense.
OK, sorry for being absent, but a few hours of reading CentCom and DoD press releases re: mostly young, dead Americans drove me to drink. I’ll answer some of the questions in my next comment, but I’m gonna climb on my handy soapbox here because I have to get this out of my system.
Regardless of what your politics are, following the links on the body count site to the details drives home the cost of this exercise in ways that the media has failed to convey. The dry bureaucratic language of the press releases can, oddly, give the reader freedom to imagine the events that generated these terse documents. All that I can say is that it’s some version of Hell to be in Iraq. I don’t think that any of us who haven’t lived in war zones can really understand the mindset of the Iraqis or the troops.
Our keyboard-based battles here seem to demean the memories of the men and women that we have put in harm’s way as well the citizens of Iraq who are living in what may seem to them to be anarchy. If we do nothing else, we really, really need to restore basic civil order to the country if we have any decency at all.
Sorry to go off like this, but we’re dealing with real, living and breathing people here. Too often we (all of us) talk like we’re dealing with some tokens in an Avalon-Hill war game.
OK, now back to the venal :-).
Anarch – I’ve been looking at CentCom /DoD casualty reports, so they do not mention civilian or, usually, other coalition casualties. A few quick tries with Google for civilian checkpoint casualties were horribly unproductive.
MAC – I posted some of the numbers before. Of the 53 KIA from car bombs, 3 were at checkpoints. Two of the 28 US fatalities due to suicide car bombs, hostile vehicle accidents or generic explosions occured at checkpoints. I’ve looked at 155 of the 320 IED fatalaties and 1 that’s ONE since July of last year occurred at a checkpoint. Nearly all of the 155 fall into a few categories – attacks on convoys, attacks on patrols, and targets of opportunity (device was planted and foot patrol came by, etc.). Since I’ve been reviewing the data in reverse chronological order, it’s possible that there may be earlier data clusters that will disproportionately increase the numbers, but so far I’ve found 6 checkpoint fatalities out of 250 total KIA.
Jerry, maybe I’m sorry to have sent you that link…
So one thing that I’m curious about is the # of foreign nationals fighting in our uniform – I think I had heard upwards of 10% (which I find hard to believe but am too lazy to google at the moment). Occasionally one reads about a Filipino or Puerto Rican being awarded US citizenship posthumously. One also comes across allegations that when these soldiers die they sometimes get buried locally and don’t get counted (at least in the US media). Anyway, I wonder how the casualty list describes such soldiers and how many appear.
Rilkefan: One also comes across allegations that when these soldiers die they sometimes get buried locally and don’t get counted (at least in the US media).
I read that allegation while looking up information on Mazen Dana. I have to say it stinks of an urban myth to me, and I found some analysis of the practicalities of such a practice (I think on the Suburban Guerrilla blog) that backed up this opinion. As far as I know Snopes hasn’t yet been asked to give an opinion.
This is a web page discussing the number of immigrants in the armed forces that seems to cite appropriate sources. It also lists the phrase ‘green card soldiers’ which gets 841 hits. A couple of links from that search here (It also appeared in the NRO and has suggests that” This points to another practical problem. By limiting military service to those who have already become citizens, we might be less likely to face instances of desertion and treason, like the San Patricio Battalion, a group of Irish immigrants in our Army that defected to fight for the enemy in the Mexican War.”), George Galloway‘s take (I won’t say anymore to avoid any chance of a libel suit), this one where they are threatening to deport the wife of a US Army sergeant, this Soldier of Fortune link asserting that illegal aliens have enlisted (as well as a number of other accusations about illegal infiltration to US bases and such) and this anti war based page that talks about armed force recruiting efforts aimed at Latinos.
There are no warranties, expressed or implied, given with these links ;^)
Liberal Japonicus- There are people in the military there to get US citizenship. But I don’t think a policy of dumping them in anonymous graves would be popular with their American comrades. Or easy to conceal.
I had a guy from Guam in my unit in the AF, he was a nice guy. I and others wouldn’t have liked seeing him dumped in an anonymous grave.
The real stuff the Bush admin does is bad enough that we don’t need to go to weird stuff like this unless there is proof.
Our keyboard-based battles here seem to demean the memories of the men and women that we have put in harm’s way as well the citizens of Iraq who are living in what may seem to them to be anarchy. If we do nothing else, we really, really need to restore basic civil order to the country if we have any decency at all.
Thanks Jerry, for posting that.
Sorry, Frank, I wasn’t endorsing the notion that there were mass graves of non-citizens, I went to find some stats on non-citizens in the US armed forces, and came across those other links, which were not of mass graves, just various things that came up with a ‘green card soldiers’ search. As I said, I don’t vouch for them at all, I just passed them on. Sorry that I didn’t state that clearly enough.
And JerryN, exactly right.
JerryN, let me add my thanks.
I know this thread is off the bottom, but there is one (somewhat off-topic) thing left in my mind. Votermom’s “the whole law and order sitch in Iraq is broken,” hit the nail, and your comment drove it in.
Is something lacking in imagination or empathy (or what?) in the people who don’t acknowledge what a disaster Iraq is? Two years in, and we don’t even control Baghdad. Electricity worse than before the war, sewage running in the streets and into the rivers (in a desert!), car bombs almost every day.
The only ray of hope is the recent election, and what was that? All roads shut down for days, candidates who couldn’t even reveal their names for fear of assassination, and the result — a Shiite coalition that will at best be quietly opposed to the occupation.
At least most of the “getting better every day” happy talk has stopped (after about a year of it). It makes me want to scream.
JerryN-I feel like I must be missing something. Could you expand your much praised comment for me?
I thought the passion of our keyboard battles was the result of our concern for the people (American and Iraqi) there.
Frank
I don’t want to put words into JerryN’s mouth, but on both sides, it seems like Calipari’s death is more like a football to kick around rather than a result of concern. That’s both sides.
I’ve been wanting to point out this passage from Sgrena’s essay about her captivity and release (I think Slarti originally linked it from CNN.com)
I’ve made several attempts to write about it, and I still can’t seem to set out what I want to say, but it seems very important to me the notion of human connectedness here. One of the kidnapper’s footballing heroes makes a statement about what is right and correct and it makes an impact. I’m sure that this is going to be viewed as an opportunity for snark by some, but the fact that this simple gesture shook the kidnapper says a lot about what is important. If the t-shirt had read some other phrase heaping scorn on Sgrena’s captors, I can’t imagine that the impact would have been the same.
LJ, I’m not sure the impact of the T-shirt was that big a deal. They still didn’t release her till they got the money.
Seeing these captors as ‘human’ isn’t bad (because they are) but we should never forget what they are doing is despicable.
Since when are people from Guam or Puerto Rico not American citizens? I’m not nitpicking, I’m just double-checking that the Military hasn’t done something ridiculous.
Liberal Japonicus- Wow thats pretty cool. Compared to most sites this one is better.
I’m being petty here but I can’t believe Mac couldn’t seem to understand that the 500 american deaths he cited were both inacurate as a number and also not relevant to the fear the soldiers should feel when they see a car.
I wish I believed it were possible for us to provide basic security in Iraq.
Loving kindness can accomplish miracles, but I don’t think we Americans have enough on tap.
Frank – LJ has it right. It seems like we (and by we, I mean both sides in these threads) quickly turn people like Calipari or the troops into abstract objects to be used to further our debating points. After a while the focus becomes the debate itself.
LJ: I don’t want to put words into JerryN’s mouth, but on both sides, it seems like Calipari’s death is more like a football to kick around rather than a result of concern. That’s both sides.
I was moved by Calipari’s death, simply because people who do things like that shake me. Sgrena wasn’t his sister or his daughter or his mother or his girlfriend or even someone he knew well: she was his responsibility. He moved to put his body between her and danger because that was the job he’d taken on to do.
Something like that moves me like reading about the band who played on as the Titanic was sinking moves me.
And, while it is unfair to target any specific members of the rightwing blogmob, I was jarred by the fact that so many people could read about this and their immediate response was to defend the soldiers who killed him from any word of criticism. Like sitting listening to music and someone starts talking loudly at the top of their voice jars me. Or indeed like being at a showing of Titanic and the audience laughs at the band for playing as it sinks. It may be that it’s a defense mechanism – killing Calipari was so obviously wrong, so obviously tragic, that the soldiers immediately responsible have got to be immediately defended, in their eyes. (Just as some people deal with the emotion engendered in them by music, by talking loudly and inconsequentially. Just as some people dealt with any empathy they might feel for the characters in Titanic by laughing loudly at the band.)
It may be that getting angry at people who have this defense mechanism is self-defeating: they won’t care, and no one else will be convinced. But I don’t believe the two equate. Nicola Calipari was a hero, and what he did meant something: meant, if nothing else, that Guiliana Sgrena got to go home alive. May mean – I can hope – some reconsideration of the current policy that fear is sufficient excuse for US soldiers to kill civilians.
My bad re PR. Funny that residents there are non-voting citizens.
Jonas Cord- Oops your right they are citizens. I made that same assumption at the time too. Easy to forget unincorperated territory.
They actually have the vote just no voting national representation.
That’s good news to me, guys. I would have lost it if there was some abiguity about the status of the citizenship of soldiers from the territories…
I think you have it 100% wrong Jesurgislac. The people you speak of are probably more like me than like you in the way they view the world. First impression of what happened from what you would term a ‘conservative’ point of view is that the whole thing was a rotten mess and a miserable shame. A brave and honorable man died doing his duty. A conservative sees that immediately. We see it as so self-evident that we don’t comment on it because we think EVERYONE would see that as self evident.
So what do we see in the comments? People attacking OTHER brave and honorable men in US uniforms. So we defend them. The guys at the roadblock may not be anything other than stupid drunks out for a good time on the night as far as anyone here knows, but my first instinct isn’t to think that of our men in uniform. My first instinct is to defend these guys and find out what really happened because I think our brave men deserve that. Calipari deserves that too.
I’m reserving judgement about what ‘really’ happened until more information is available. Currently all we have is a lot of media doing what they do best, making as big a splash with a story as they can. Blowing it up, making it huge, making it controversial. It’s what they’ve been taught to do. This doesn’t always lead to the best way to find out the facts on the ground. But at least it will mean that the facts on the ground will be found out eventually because the powers that be have to now. That is good. But as usual we have to wait a bit to find out what happened.
Personally I think the whole thing was a horrible accident. From what I’ve read the Italians were the victim of circumstance. Everything that could go against them did. It apparently was or had been raining, they were jubilant and perhaps not paying as much attention as they should have, the Americans were probably jumpy and their training was to shoot at anything that didn’t do EXACTLY as they want and it was nighttime or even worse twilight. But I have no real evidence of any of that, but since when has that stopped anyone here?
I do hope for everyone’s sake that if there are problems with roadblock/checkpoint methodology that the story gets in the military’s face about it and makes them change it for the better. By better I mean for our guys and innocent civilians.
Jes
I really think you could have made the point about sympathy for Calipari a little less bluntly and left it after it was made
Crock Pot
So what do we see in the comments? People attacking OTHER brave and honorable men in US uniforms.
Could you identify which comments were you felt were attacking? I’m not doubting you, I’d just be interested to know what specifically you were responding to.
liberalj: I really think you could have made the point about sympathy for Calipari a little less bluntly and left it after it was made
I really think you’re right. 😉
Crockpot: We see it as so self-evident that we don’t comment on it because we think EVERYONE would see that as self evident.
How, then, do you explain the number of right-wing blogmobbers who explained away Calipari’s killing by casting the blame on the people in the car?
How, then, do you explain the number of right-wing blogmobbers who explained away Calipari’s killing by casting the blame on the people in the car?
Maybe you can provide a link to that blog. On this blog, however, you’ll notice that this thread was started by a post speculating about assassination, and then subsequent comments alleged murder. Defending US soldiers from asinine and unfounded allegations is not the same as “explained away Calipari’s killing”. Really. Trust me on that.
How do you know the blame WASN’T on the people in the car Jes? Who do you blame for an accident?
There will be faults found and I expect a large portion should be heaped on either the men at the checkpoint for not following correct procedure or the checkpoint methodology itself. However, I would not be suprised if some blame is put on the driver of the car and or environmental conditions.
Were the American’s 100% at fault? maybe
Were the Italian’s 100% blameless? maybe
Also, I want to point out. I don’t speak for the ‘right-wing blogmobbers’. Just myself. I THINK I understand how the ‘cons’ here at OW see things but I’d really rather they spoke for themselves on this.
OK – I’ve finally finished poring over the data and came up with 6 US KIA identified as having been caused by IEDs, vehicle-borne explosives. suicide bombers, etc. at checkpoints. Like I mentioned earlier. it’s hard to come up with civilian casualty numbers at these checkpoints, but it’s probably fair to say that there have been many more than 6 deaths, since the report cited by Mac above indicated that there were at least 25 civilian deaths at checkpoints by October of 2003.
Jes, I though that was a good post, but it doesn’t speak for me. Calipari died a hero, but my anger is because of the needless, pointless death. In fact, I am even more angry about the Iraqi family that was shot at in January (than about this incident), the one with the pictures of the two surviving children covered in blood. What angers me is the feeling that this comes under “collateral damage, too bad, cracked eggs and omelets” category.
All the unacknowledged death is starting to get to me.
There’s a difference between a car accident, in which both participants could have been equally dangerous, and a shooting, though. When someone’s shot, one normally subjects the person with the gun to greater scrutiny than the person on the receiving end. I can’t be the only one who sees a similarity to the Amadou Diallo case here.
Crock Pot: How do you know the blame WASN’T on the people in the car Jes? Who do you blame for an accident?
Well, one thing the US military have not claimed is that the guns just happened to go off pointing in the direction of the car, which is the only way what happened could legitimately be described as an “accident”. (I’m aware this has been known to happen at checkpoints: I recall an instance from a year or so ago where a very inexperienced Israeli soldier had the safety catch off on his gun, and was fiddling nervously with the trigger. That could legitimately be described as an accident.)
Now if this is what you are asserting could have happened – the guns went off and just happened to be pointing at the car – yes, that could legitimately be described as an accident, but yes, you can lay blame for it: the soldiers should not have been “fiddling nervously” with their guns so that they accidentally went off.
Other than that possibility, no, it wasn’t an accident.
However, I would not be suprised if some blame is put on the driver of the car and or environmental conditions.
Hah. No, nor will I be surprised in the slightest. In fact, I’d be very surprised if blame isn’t put on the driver of the car and/or environmental conditions: the more blame, the better. That’s usually what happens when US soldiers shoot civilians at checkpoints.
Macallan, a very large number of right-wingers on this thread have asserted that when US soldiers shot Calipari it must, somehow, have been the Italians’ fault. Somehow. Yes, I do call that trying to explain away his death.
And if you’ve got links to the right-wing American blogs that praised Calipari rather than defensively claiming that it wasn’t the American soldiers who shot him who were at fault, do link to them here: I’ll put the links of any you can find up at my livejournal.
a very large number of right-wingers on this thread have asserted that when US soldiers shot Calipari it must, somehow, have been the Italians’ fault.
Reading is fundamental and so is the topic being discussed. What you meant to say was, a very large number of right-wingers on this thread have asserted that when US soldiers shot Calipari it didn’t necessarily have to be premeditated murder or an assassination.
This isn’t an accurate description of the evolution of this story. It isn’t as if the story was merely told as an accident and the right wing ignored the tragedy of the accident. This was reported as assassination attempt. The idea that we might focus on the proper role of the soldiers in THAT context rather than the tragedy of accidental death is completely unshocking and in my opinion not a sign of lack of compassion or anything else on the part of right-wing commentors. This issue was not presented as an accident, it was initially presented as an assassination attempt. Considering that the Italians are suggesting that they did not tell us about the release, the initial presentation seems unlikely. Then the case was recast in a posture of a critique of US policy with a framing of ambush. Once again this is not at all a framing of the question that is conducive to mere reflection on the tragedy of accidental death. The accidental death in this case is tragic. The fact that I don’t talk about that in a conversation about policy and assassination is not surprising. I would note for example that you didn’t start this thread talking about it either. You were much more interested in accusations of ambush and insinuations of assassination.
Crock Pot, your take is imminently reasonable. My objection is to those who are bent on painting Sgrena as a villain in what appears to be an attempt to justify the shooting. It’s as if justice will be served if it turns out she was a terrible person, or if it turns out Calipari was killed by one of 40 American bullets instead of one of 400, or if it turns out Sgrena mistook a Bradley for a tank. A massive right-wing slime machine, fresh off of trying to destroy Eason Jordan’s career (for trying to bring some attention to incidents like this) is now bringing all its force to bear on making Calipari’s heroic death a vain and miguided effort (because, you know, it was a lying commie rat he saved).
I also take exception to the amount of speculation being passed off as fact. The photos of the car haven’t been verified, to my knowledge (and many right-wingers already tried to pass off a different photo as the authentic one, so they get no leeway in my book here), there are very conflicting stories on whether ransom was paid, Michelle Malkin (the queen of slime herself) is taking second-hand comments from the boyfriend and dissecting them as if they were eyewitness accounts. Everybody is going to simply say they are trying to determine the truth, but we all know that’s a crock, given the methodology. The clear goal here is to blame the victim, not to find out the truth about why U.S. troops opened fire on civilians.
Sebastian Holsclaw: This isn’t an accurate description of the evolution of this story. It isn’t as if the story was merely told as an accident and the right wing ignored the tragedy of the accident. This was reported as assassination attempt. The idea that we might focus on the proper role of the soldiers in THAT context rather than the tragedy of accidental death is completely unshocking and in my opinion not a sign of lack of compassion or anything else on the part of right-wing commentors.
The assassination angle was dismissed right away by everyone in this thread. Sure, the kidnappers say it was an assassination attempt, and some radical sites here and there are probably pushing this angle, but has anyone here? Most of the discussion here has been about U.S. ROE at checkpoints and details of the incident (plus your badgering Jes to try to get her to say it was murder).
Sebastian: It isn’t as if the story was merely told as an accident and the right wing ignored the tragedy of the accident.
It isn’t as if what happened was an accident, either. The soldiers at that checkpoint intentionally aimed and shot at a car. That is not an accident.
The accidental death in this case is tragic.
What accidental death? Unless you wish to assert that the guns fired were shot off accidentally and just happened to be pointing at the car, it is really impossible to assert that this was an accidental death.
You were much more interested in accusations of ambush and insinuations of assassination.
Ambush is a reasonable term for a bunch of armed men concealed at the side of a road shooting at cars. (I’ll take the opportunity to acknowledge here that “drive-by shooting” is an incorrect term: I mixed up my slang.)
Again, if you have doubts or are confused about what I was trying to say in my livejournal posts, do stop by and ask your questions.
Gromit,
Blah, blah, blah.. US soldiers are liars & murderers, right wingers are liars, Sgrena’s boyfriend is a liar, heck, Sgrena’s is probably lying when she said that they almost lost control of the car, etc, etc..
By the way, here are the photos.
“Ambush is a reasonable term for a bunch of armed men concealed at the side of a road shooting at cars.”
You’re inventing the “concealed” part for effect, right?
You’re inventing the “concealed” part for effect, right?
I wish I was.
Apparently one aspect of these “impromptu checkpoints” is that they’re usually not visible to passing cars until/unless the soldiers at the checkpoints make themselves visible – by, for example, shining a searchlight on a car and shooting at it.
I hope I can say this in a way that does not inflame or antagonize.
When I tell my kid that she is doing something wrong when she does something wrong, that’s not attacking her. Like when she grabs her sister’s toy. That’s correcting her and hopefully keeping her from doing the wrong thing in the future.
Likewise when I say that US soldiers are doing something wrong when they shoot at civilian cars and kill civilians. There may be reasons that make them do that, but I do not think those reasons can become excuses.
When I read this thread what I read from some people seems to be that because they are our soldiers they can do no wrong and therefore must not be criticized. Anything wrong that happens must be the fault of somebody else or something else. That disturbs me a LOT. I do not think that when people do this they are supporting the soldiers in a way that is actually helpful to them as huamn beings.
Do we know whether the soldiers in question were concealed? If not, the use of “ambush” is wrong. Well, it’s wrong in any case – does anyone here actually believe that they started shooting without any warning?
Anyway, I think it’s a mistake to be talking about the culpability of the soldiers in question – any such discussions ought to be directed at those giving the orders describing how checkpoints are to be run and those responsible for overseeing how those orders are being carried out.
Rilkefan: Well, it’s wrong in any case – does anyone here actually believe that they started shooting without any warning?
Yes.
It is routinely claimed that Iraqi civilians only “get themselves killed” at checkpoints because they ignore the warning signals.
This is getting increasingly hard to believe, and I find it impossible to believe when we’re talking about a professional agent driving the car.
It’s entirely possible that the soldiers think they’re giving a warning. But after at least 18 months of knowing the warnings they give are ineffective, I’m not sure why they still think so.
There’s an article I linked to from one of my journal posts, and I think it’s also linked to from one of the Sgrena threads here, about the experience of driving through a checkpoint as an Iraqi.
any such discussions ought to be directed at those giving the orders
“I was just following orders” is a very dangerous thing to allow as an excuse.
Rilkefan: Do we know whether the soldiers in question were concealed? If not, the use of “ambush” is wrong. Well, it’s wrong in any case – does anyone here actually believe that they started shooting without any warning?
I don’t have any way of knowing what happened in this instance, but in the video I linked above, the soldiers clearly give insufficient warning (which, were I the driver I would reasonably describe as “no warning”), so I find it plausible that the same thing happened here. But I’m very uncomfortable with the term ambush. It might have seemed like an ambush, but I doubt that was the intent of the soldiers.
OK, I’m back from lunch. I think I’ll let my review of “attacks” be limited to just the title of the thread and what has been put in after I left.
The topic of this thread is “The Americans don’t want you to return alive to Italy”. After reading through the OP you realize this is what the kidnappers said, but conservatives are probably already in combative mode because it looks like Edward is accusing the US of an assassination attempt. Conservatives are less in ‘analytical’ mode and more in ’emotional’ right of the top.
I’m going to lose context here but Jes said, “Other than that possibility, no, it wasn’t an accident.” This is more ‘unfair’ than an attack in my book. US Soldiers are operating under a set of procedures at checkpoints. The procedures are there to protect them and is drilled into them so they react the way the US military wants them to without thinking about it. They drill this stuff to be automatic because if you have to think about it you’ve wasted too much time and have already been attacked. The unfair part is that she seems to be blaming men for following procedure instead of criticizing the procedure itself. Also there seems to be a disconnect between the usage of the word ‘accident’. If you trip and you arm falls into a shredder the arm gets shredded. The tool did what it was supposed to do but your arm was NOT supposed to go in there. That is how I see this as an accident. The men at the checkpoint are the tool, and the Italians are the arm. You don’t blame the tool for doing what it is supposed to do and you don’t blame the arm for being able to get in there. You see it as an avoidable accident if you make it harder for arms to get into the shredder. I blame the procedures that set up innocent civilians to be in harms way instead of the men carrying out the procedures in this case.
Do the procedures at checkpoints need to be updated? Apparently and soon.
Another example from Jes, “Ambush is a reasonable term for a bunch of armed men concealed at the side of a road shooting at cars.” This is flat out seen by me as attacking Americans. She seems to be suggesting that the US was there specifically just to shoot at cars like murders, assassins or terrorists. This is wrong. The US set up checkpoints to look for contraband, explosives and known terrorists. It is part and parcel with trying to establish order in the country. Checkpoints are necessary in a situation like they have in Iraq.
“The assassination angle was dismissed right away by everyone in this thread. Sure, the kidnappers say it was an assassination attempt, and some radical sites here and there are probably pushing this angle, but has anyone here?”
Sgrena herself suggested that angle in the linked article in the initial post. The title of the post is “The Americans don’t want you to return alive to Italy” which yes I know is what the kidnappers said, but Edward uses it to suggest that Sgrena isn’t crazy to think that.
Jesurgislac you have a view of ‘accident’ that doesn’t comport with mine if you think that this is an accurate statement: “It isn’t as if what happened was an accident, either. The soldiers at that checkpoint intentionally aimed and shot at a car. That is not an accident.”
It is an accident because the soldiers aimed and shot at a car which should have been stopping instead of going. If I operate train switches and I intentionally switch the track because I have bad information about the locations of the trains, that switch will direct trains into a crash which is an accident. That fact that I intentionaly switched the track does not make it less of an accident. The bad information about location of the trains makes my intentional act accidentaly lead to unfortunate consequences. That is the completely normal way of using the word accident.
“I was just following orders” is a very dangerous thing to allow as an excuse.
Sure, but I don’t believe Joe National Guardsman is shooting random passing cars. I don’t believe he’s not making what he considers a good-faith effort to warn cars. The guy giving him orders ought to know whether Joe’s idea of a good-faith effort is acceptable.
“It’s entirely possible that the soldiers think they’re giving a warning.”
Then you shouldn’t write “ambush” – it’s just an abuse of the word. You should write “irresponsibly [or “unacceptably”, or “criminally”, or whatever] dangerous checkpoint”. As for the rest, seems to me you’ve got enough for a suspicion or a fear, not a belief – which ought to be weighed against the fact that the roads are still in use.
Anyone ever hear the expression: concealed by darkness?
Even if the soldiers weren’t taking active steps to make sure their checkpoint was hard to spot: between the darkness and the rain they were likely quite well concealed.
If you watched the frontline special you would have seen that simply not being extremely quick to react in exactly the right way will get you shot at.
Personally I don’t think the Italians did anything wrong, its quite possible that neither did the soldiers, for reasonable values of wrong. So far though I don’t think that the right bloggers here have said anything to exculpate the soldiers. I simply don’t care what they have to say about the Italians.
rilkefan- Re: use of the word ambush. I think its a perfectly appropriate word to use here. Whether or not the soldiers intended an ambush the Italians certainly experienced one.
Thanks, rilkefan and Gromit, that’s been on my mind, too.
Jes, to me the word “ambush” implies malevolent intent, lying in wait for a victim and springing a surprise attack.
The senior officers or officials who have established these rules are the ones who should be held to account. We don’t know the facts of this particular case yet, but it seems to me that given the number of reports of civilian deaths, something is very wrong.
It is an accident because the soldiers aimed and shot at a car which should have been stopping instead of going.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. What is accidental — the car is accidentally going? Or the soldiers are accidentally shooting?
My point of view is that it is a mistake (i.e. screw up) but not an accident. I think the word I may be looking for is negligence.
As far as whether the soldiers think they are giving a “good faith” warning or not, is a red herring. There are procedures to follow and orders to obey. I believe that if the soldiers thought their procedures and orders were criminal we would have heard about it, but that doesn’t mean they think that procedure gives adequate warning, or even “good faith.”
I’m with Jes on “accident”, though. An accident is typically an incident that is devoid of intent. If a guy is driving a car, and hydroplanes into another vehicle, that is an accident. But if he sees his ex-wife’s car ahead of him, and plows into the back bumper, only it turns out it just looks like his ex-wifes car, that isn’t an accident. That is an error. This is hair-splitting, sure, but not without merit.
Same principle applies here. Presumably the soldiers thought the car was a threat. They fired on it. They knew they were using deadly force on human beings, they were just mistaken about the nature of the target.
Rilkefan said: “Occasionally one reads about a Filipino or Puerto Rican being awarded US citizenship posthumously.”
And then various comments discussed US citizenship and US armed forces. Many comments have since come and gone.
Which I find absolutely remarkable.
Rilkefan, could you, and I’d like to ask everyone else who has since commented on this thread, please explain precisely what country you believe Puerto Ricans are citizens of before “being awarded US citizenship posthumously”?
(Hint: March 2, 1917.)
Thanks. (For extra credit, what country do citizens of Guam hold citizenship in? Hint: the Organic Act of 1950.)
(Frank says:
Jonas is way ahead of you, Gary.
People subsequently fleetingly addressed the citizenship question; my apologies for having not caught that last time through.
I’m still astonished that it has to be pointed out who the citizens of the United States are to citizens of the United States.
Gary, I suggest you read a bit more carefully. For example, March 10, 2005 12:01 PM.
yah my face was red
Which reminds me — whatever happened to shooting at tires? One National Guardsman I know wrote about doing that in Iraq — shooting at the tires of a car that didn’t stop right away at a checkpoint.
Turns out the driver was Iraqi and couldn’t understand the warnings.
Note that if someone had asked me this morning, “Are Puerto Ricans US citizens?”, I would have said, “Sure, though there’s some controversy on the island about it, and not to the extent that people there got to vote for Kerry”. Will engage brain while posting next time.
Gromit, on accident what do you think of what I said about it to Jesurgislac:
If I operate train switches and I intentionally switch the track because I have bad information about the locations of the trains, that switch will direct trains into a crash which is an accident. That fact that I intentionaly switched the track does not make it less of an accident. The bad information about location of the trains makes my intentional act accidentaly lead to unfortunate consequences. That is the completely normal way of using the word accident.
Aren’t train switch crashes thought of as accidents?
Sorry folks, but it’s been brought to our attention that this extremely long thread is causing performance problems.
Can we move this to an open thread without too much disruption?
Please let me know.
e
I think my analogy is better, Sebastian. There is no question that firing at a car will endanger the occupants. Had they fired at another target, and the car passed through their line of fire, that would be closer to your train analogy, and would be reasonably called an accident. Obviously this is a distinction with some gray areas, and there is a colloquial use of “accident” that can mean a simple mistake, but I think the exculpatory connotations of “accident” are simply too strong in this case.
e, sounds like a good idea to me. Starting from a clean slate might help the discussion. Call it “A Clean Slate For Sgrena Speculation and Sparring”.
agree…this thread’s being closed.