First hand account of Italian Reporter situation

[Icon]

Someone made a comment that talking about issues like this don't matter because none of us were there. Fair enough. Here's a first hand account


US Attack Against Italians in Baghdad was Deliberate: Companion

ROME - The companion of freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena on Saturday leveled serious accusations at US troops who fired at her convoy as it was nearing Baghdad airport, saying the shooting had been deliberate.

Giuliana had information, and the US military did not want her to survive.

Pier Scolari
"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," Pier Scolari said on leaving Rome's Celio military hospital where Sgrena is to undergo surgery following her return home.

"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."

The shooting late Friday was witnessed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's office which was on the phone with one of the secret service agents, said Scolari. "Then the US military silenced the cellphones," he charged.

"Giuliana had information, and the US military did not want her to survive," he added.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0305-05.htm


Also - look at the patterns, 4 Canadian soldiers were killed while performing exercises by a hyertense Jet Pilot. The Pilot got off on all charges by US military court. Had Canadians 'accidentally' killed American Soldiers things would be very different right now. (THINK)

There are patterns of wreckless behavious and undercurrents of malicious intent, not to say this article is 100% legit, but it is a first hand account

[FunForOne]

yea, yea, yea

USA = Evil
Rest of the world = Good


The US army is evil enough to kill 100,000 of people but not silled enough to kill one female journalist.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

yea, yea, yea

USA = Evil
Rest of the world = Good


The US army is evil enough to kill 100,000 of people but not silled enough to kill one female journalist.

I thought one WMD (Atom Bomb) killed 100,000 people? or the Firebombs (see Dresdin) - she was also with a bunch of Italian Secret service agents, who probably have some sort of training don't you think?

The American soldiers out there are young kids man, it's a shame to put them in harm's way for a war over Oil.
Right now Rape is reaching crisis levels in Sudan, the Tamil Tigers are abducting children to become child soldiers and the Bush administration is still bragging about taking out terrorists like thier ex-business partner Saddam Hussien.
The US does some amazing things, NASA's space program is fantastic, relief and support efforts have been tremendous.

Slandering the French, ignoring the U.N. and lying and cheating by one Administration should not tarnish the reputation of an entire land mass and it's people. Just a crooked administration who lie, cheat, decieve on a Facist level. Fortunately, many Americans have the right to oppose the Admnistration. It's just too bad Bush won't listen.

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by Icon

I thought one WMD (Atom Bomb) killed 100,000 people? or the Firebombs (see Dresdin) - she was also with a bunch of Italian Secret service agents, who probably have some sort of training don't you think?

The American soldiers out there are young kids man, it's a shame to put them in harm's way for a war over Oil.
Right now Rape is reaching crisis levels in Sudan, the Tamil Tigers are abducting children to become child soldiers and the Bush administration is still bragging about taking out terrorists like thier ex-business partner Saddam Hussien.
The US does some amazing things, NASA's space program is fantastic, relief and support efforts have been tremendous.

Slandering the French, ignoring the U.N. and lying and cheating by one Administration should not tarnish the reputation of an entire land mass and it's people. Just a crooked administration who lie, cheat, decieve on a Facist level. Fortunately, many Americans have the right to oppose the Admnistration. It's just too bad Bush won't listen.

Its like a monkey learned how to type.

If you were you, I would get someone to proof read you posts.

If your against the President of the United States, Its not very logical for you to mention the U.N. and oil at the same time mentioning the crises level of rape in the sudan.


Seems like the U.N. has done a great job of helping them and not illegally profiting from the oil for food program.

[kmanrox]

hehe... you drama queens are kind of funny sometimes...

you're the same kids who wore all black in school and died your hair black and wore combat boots hehe

[Icon]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Its like a monkey learned how to type.

If you were you, I would get someone to proof read you posts.

Sorry....I do not possess the gramatical keyboard skill. Excellent retort btw. Calling me a monkey and all. so much for discussion.
U.N. food for Oil 'scandal' is mostly a smoke screen. But I digress, you want to start with insults, thats fine, I prefer speaking with grown ups.

I wonder, if Lensman or Eric or whoever somehow installed a spell check, how would you ever be able to reply to anyone? You'd become extinct. Maybe it's not such a badd (sp?) idear (sp?) afterr (sp?) all.

Quick lesson - You're = you are
Your = possesive

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Hedonistic

hehe... you drama queens are kind of funny sometimes...

you're the same kids who wore all black in school and died your hair black and wore combat boots hehe

and read sandman comics.......

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

"Your mother wears combat boots!"

Oh wait, that was Junior High school.

ADG Webmaster

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Hedonistic

hehe... you drama queens are kind of funny sometimes...

you're the same kids who wore all black in school and died your hair black and wore combat boots hehe

Hey! I still wear those boots!

Nothin' better to trudge across the frozen canadian tundra in, imo...

[sickkittens]

Originally Posted by Hedonistic

hehe... you drama queens are kind of funny sometimes...

you're the same kids who wore all black in school and died your hair black and wore combat boots hehe

Na, those kids grow up to be politicians.

[Rui]

Well already said in the other thread this wasn't a "mistake that happened due to the people in the car"

Originally Posted by Hedonistic

hehe... you drama queens are kind of funny sometimes...

you're the same kids who wore all black in school and died your hair black and wore combat boots hehe

coming from somebody that pays to have sex with trannys I somehow find that comment funny

[FunForOne]

Originally Posted by Icon

Sorry....I do not possess the gramatical keyboard skill. Excellent retort btw. Calling me a monkey and all. so much for discussion.
U.N. food for Oil 'scandal' is mostly a smoke screen. But I digress, you want to start with insults, thats fine, I prefer speaking with grown ups.

I wonder, if Lensman or Eric or whoever somehow installed a spell check, how would you ever be able to reply to anyone? You'd become extinct. Maybe it's not such a badd (sp?) idear (sp?) afterr (sp?) all.

Quick lesson - You're = you are
Your = possesive

I wasn't reffering to grammar or spelling errors. I was talking about your content. I was helping you.

The anti-american group would not have wanted you to mention all those things at the same time. Those things make the U.S. look good and the U.N. look bad.


As far as spelling, we could all type in spell checker and then post, but I dont have time for that. If I type an error and it looks close, I let it fly.

[Icon]

my bad 8 chars

[tranza]

That's fucked up...

[Workshop_Willy]

Yep, and it's from an objective source:

"Common Dreams News Center - Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community"

The chief editor of Sgrena's left-wing newspaper Il Manifesto Gabriele Polo meanwhile branded Calipari's death a "murder".

I sure trust these guys cover the entire story, like their detailed account of vehicle speed, etc. -- NOT A WORD about it.

Also:

"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."

Obviously, they hadn't. And the quote is not attributed, we're left to surmise that the "companion" made it, but if this is an eyewitness account, how could he be wrong about the checkpoints? Hmmm..... All in all a very solid piece of objective journalism.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy

Yep, and it's from an objective source:

"Common Dreams News Center - Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community"
..... All in all a very solid piece of objective journalism.

if you look a little closer they pull articles from publications all over the world, providing a balanced global view rather than a werstern POV

for example, the article cited
"Published on Saturday, March 5, 2005 by Agence France Presse "

they also pull article from major US and canadian papers as well as the UK

please don't be a clown

[Workshop_Willy]

Originally Posted by Icon

if you look a little closer they pull articles from publications all over the world, providing a balanced global view rather than a werstern POV

for example, the article cited
"Published on Saturday, March 5, 2005 by Agence France Presse "

they also pull article from major US and canadian papers as well as the UK

please don't be a clown

You're serious, you're not pulling my chain? You mean to tell me that the fact that they state up front and unambiguously that they are a publication featuring "news and views" which are for the "progressive community" means that to you, Icon, they are... how did you put it? Oh, yes: "providing a balanced global view rather than a werstern POV". Those are your words, correct? I'll leave you to live with them.

And by the way, my comments were in regard to the specific article ( ) you posted, but nice strategy on your part to try and obfuscate the point. Too bad your execution was so incompetent. Do you actually have a challenge for me, or can I safely take a nap while I respond to your next reply, as I could have on this one?

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy

You're serious, you're not pulling my chain? You mean to tell me that the fact that they state up front and unambiguously that they are a publication featuring "news and views" which are for the "progressive community" means that to you, Icon, they are... how did you put it? Oh, yes: "providing a balanced global view rather than a werstern POV". Those are your words, correct? I'll leave you to live with them.

And by the way, my comments were in regard to the specific article ( ) you posted, but nice strategy on your part to try and obfuscate the point. Too bad your execution was so incompetent. Do you actually have a challenge for me, or can I safely take a nap while I respond to your next reply, as I could have on this one?

It is progressive news. without a doubt. it provides a balance to the innundation(sp?) of conservative news perspectives. I apologize, I meant to say they provide 'a' balance - my bad. I will retract my prior statement as you have rightly indicated the flaw in my reason. I conceed. you may proceed to masturbate furiously to your attention to detail and my submission.
I have no challenge other than suggest you perhaps review WHO has written and published the article, and perhaps consider the undercurrents of these allegations rather than the semantics. As you have used the word "obfuscate" in proper context and I bow to your superior intellect.

good vocab btw

[Workshop_Willy]

Originally Posted by Icon

I have no challenge other than suggest you perhaps review WHO has written and published the article, and perhaps consider the undercurrents of these allegations rather than the semantics. As you have used the word "obfuscate" in proper context and I bow to your superior intellect.

Words mean things. The lack of words also mean things. The bias of the press exists not just in what a publication says, but more importantly in juxtaposition to what it doesn't say. Like, how fast was the convoy travelling, who made the quote, etc. Therefore, the undercurrent is precisely what I am paying attention to.

The article, purportedly a work of journalism, glaringly omits to address the claims of the US military in regard to the convoy's speed and failure to respond to visual signals to slow down and stop. I ask you Icon, would that not be one of the first things an honest journalist would discover and print considering that this person was an eyewitness? That omission is an undercurrent. To me, that denotes a bias in favor of the "conspiracy" theory being drummed up around the whole thing.

[Icon]

Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy

The article, purportedly a work of journalism, glaringly omits to address the claims of the US military in regard to the convoy's speed and failure to respond to visual signals to slow down and stop. I ask you Icon, would that not be one of the first things an honest journalist would discover and print considering that this person was an eyewitness? That omission is an undercurrent. To me, that denotes a bias in favor of the "conspiracy" theory being drummed up around the whole thing.

It could, I agree. I could also point out this is the first article that does not mention the convoy's speed. Perhaps, and I'm just speculating as I sit on my ass over 1000 kms away, perhaps they were aware of the arrival of the convoy.

"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming," Pier Scolari said on leaving Rome's Celio military hospital where Sgrena is to undergo surgery following her return home.

"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."

If this is in fact the case, the other accounts are rendered moot, are they not? This was also a first hand perspective of someone who was there, who can explain US accounts?

Was the tank that killed 3 (or was it 4) reporters in Bagdad an error as well?
The 4 Canadian Soldiers bombed while performing training exercises an accident?

I'd like to say this is not a conspiracy, but what exactly is this trend? Inneptitude? (SP?) reklessness? (SP?)

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Its like a monkey learned how to type.

If you were you, I would get someone to proof read you posts.

If your against the President of the United States, Its

SPRONG!!!!
Damn, did anyone else hear that irony meter explode?

[Workshop_Willy]

Originally Posted by Icon

...

"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."
If this is in fact the case, the other accounts are rendered moot, are they not? This was also a first hand perspective of someone who was there, who can explain US accounts?

All sides seem to report that they were fired upon while approaching a checkpoint, do they not? If that's the case, then ipso facto they had not passed all checkpoints. If I'm wrong about the location, please let me know.

Originally Posted by Icon

Was the tank that killed 3 (or was it 4) reporters in Bagdad an error as well?

"as well"? It hasn't been established the that checkpoint shooting was an error. You're presupposing. But to answer your question, I simply don't know. It's a well-established fact that snipers operated (and continue to operate) from buildings containing non-combatants. As I recollect, the tank was attempting to supress sniper fire from the hotel. A journalist hunching down on a balcony might look like a sniper, and if I for one was taking sniper fire from a building and saw someone hunching on a balcony, I'd probably blow it to hell-and-gone too. This isn't Crime Scene Investigation, it's combat. Obviously innocent journalists were killed, but I would blame the snipers hiding nearby and taking potshots at a fucking tank.

Originally Posted by Icon

The 4 Canadian Soldiers bombed while performing training exercises an accident?

I haven't informed myself on this one, so I cannot respond.

Originally Posted by Icon

I'd like to say this is not a conspiracy, but what exactly is this trend? Inneptitude? (SP?) reklessness? (SP?)

You've obviously no experience of being in a tense situation where you're under fire. Lucky you. In war, shit happens. It's not easy to deal with, and it can't be eliminated. Journalists and other non-combatants find themselves in an environment they are not equipped to deal with, and occassionally behave in ways that make them seem like an enemy target even in a combat zone that doesn't see guerilla tactics. It just happens. The "trend" is not a trend at all, but an ageless feature of war called collateral damage. It's hateful, and Western nations do all that it is safe to do to minimize it but as I said, it cannot be entirely eliminated.

Compared to other wars, this one is not too bad when one considers that the vast majority of civilian casualties arise from the operational methods of the insurgents themselves. They operate like guerillas, dress like civilians, and use the civilian population for cover. Is that the fault of the US military? Absolutely not. Were the "freedom fighters" ( ) operating with regard to the sanctity of the very civilians they ostensibly are trying to "liberate" by wearing some sort of identifying garment the way the troops of the civilized world does, civilian casualties would be many times lower. It's the insurgents' fault that so many civilians have died, not the US military's.

[Workshop_Willy]

I half expected directfiesta to chime in on this one. He must have a profile against heavy lifting, eh?

[Rochard]

If the United States wanted her dead, she'd be dead already.

"They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints." That doesn't seem to be the case, does it? They were 700 meters from the airport, not inside of it. And is it not possible that there are checkpoints INSIDE of the aiport?

"The Americans and Italians knew about (her) car coming." Really? How many people are guarding the airport? Did everyone get the word? Was this word passed up the highest commands, and was trickled down in daily report with hundreds of other people who were "enroute" to the airport or the general area that day?

"Then the US military silenced the cellphones." What does this have to do with anything? Perhaps it's standard operating procedure to shut down all cell phones withing a certain area when shots are fired or during an emergency situation, being as terrorists are going to be the ones using them.

This is not the first time it has happened. It's plain and simple - you drive your car up to a checkpoint with armed guards and your driving too fast or refuse to obey commands YOU WILL GET SHOT. I'm pretty damn sure that I pulled the same stunt at Luke Air Force Base down the street from me I'll get shot too.

The other incidents with the tank shooting into a building and the 4 Canadian soldiers are called "accidents", just like this is. The tank didn't intentionally shoot into al hotel hoping to kill reporters, nor did a US jet drop live bombs intentionally on 4 Canadian soldiers during a training exercise. These people are playing with live rounds, and accidents do happen.

It's called the fog of war. Go play a few rounds of paintball and you'll see exactly what happens. The moment the whistle blows you in a combat situation, and instnatly you have no idea what is happening - and at any moment you might be "killed".

[SmokeyTheBear]

Some people's stupidity really suprises me.

Its pretty clear what happened from both sided as the story is much the same..

The italians tried to drive past a checkpoint without slowing down ( directly quoted from the hostages own words )

The u.s. did ( and should ) fire at any car that doesn't slow down..

They were supposedly very close to the airport, even more reason to shoot the car.

The "journalist" is already proven to be a liar. Directly contradicting herself several times in the last few days. First she says they were hit with floodlights before they were shot then the next day they got no warning and there were no floodlights.

[SmokeyTheBear]

for the record any military who doesnt shoot at a car driving towards you at a checkpoint in an area known to be targetted by suicide bombers in cars is not a military i want defending me.

[Kevsh]

Originally Posted by FunForOne

yea, yea, yea

USA = Evil
Rest of the world = Good

Overgeneraliztion, but the point that many critics are saying is that the USA has been handling things very poorly in Iraq from day one:

- Not securing weapon caches and important buildings after the initial invasion
- The "Mission Accomplished" fiasco
- Never finding WMD and lying to their own people about it
- Changing the story on why they invaded in the first place (the world "liberate" only came into play when it was obvious WMD were nowhere to be found)
- Thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis killed or maimed by US forces using dirty bombs and other tactics: The things you don't hear on the nightly news.
- The Iraqi prison scandal ("I was just following orders")
- The other prison scandal (How many of those arrested and held for up to 2 years in Guantanamo were ever convicted or even charged with a crime?)
- Missing weapons
- "You're either with us or against us"
- Just about everything Rumsfeld says
- The complete failure in catching bin Laden, the real target of the war on terror and the mastermind of 9/11 (although at least they are looking for him, which is a good thing)
- The number of soldiers who have stayed in Iraqi long after they were supposed to go home: The resulting depression, suicide attempts, internal harassment and abuse, etc.
- The work contracts in Iraq going to "Friendly" companies
- Sending the troops into Iraq without the proper resources, numbers and armour for their vehicles

It goes on and on ... the US's reputations has taken a battering - and rightly so - because of the stubborness of it's leadership and it's total and complete inability to even concede they've made mistakes. Operation Freedom is as much about blinding everyone to the truth as it is liberating a nation.

Iraq may be a better place in the long run but it's hard to argue the US government has handled this as best they could.

[Mojiteaux]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Some people's stupidity really suprises me.

Its pretty clear what happened from both sided as the story is much the same..

The italians tried to drive past a checkpoint without slowing down ( directly quoted from the hostages own words )

The u.s. did ( and should ) fire at any car that doesn't slow down..

They were supposedly very close to the airport, even more reason to shoot the car.

The "journalist" is already proven to be a liar. Directly contradicting herself several times in the last few days. First she says they were hit with floodlights before they were shot then the next day they got no warning and there were no floodlights.

Correction: the journalist never contradicted herself. She said from the start that there were floodlights coming from a US patrol that immediately opened fire. Perhaps FAUX news makes her contradict herself but in any other real news report her story is consistent.

On the other hand the US versions of stories have been proven just too many during the past 2 years to be complete lies. Also in this incident. They said they fired some shots in the engine to stop the car. In reality 300 bullets were fired all over the car....
They said they didn't know the journalist was being brought to the airport while a US colonel was waiting together with the Italians for her arrival at the airport...
etc
Fucking liars, that's the US government during the past 4 years

[crockett]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

for the record any military who doesnt shoot at a car driving towards you at a checkpoint in an area known to be targetted by suicide bombers in cars is not a military i want defending me.

hey don't use any common sense man.. it defeats the drama..

ok people carry on with the hating we are all part of a Evil American conspiracy to take over the world don't listen to Smokey . Btw I picked me off a few British Tourist with my sniper rifle this morning, while they were sunning them selfs on the beach like a bunch of beached whales.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy

I half expected directfiesta to chime in on this one. He must have a profile against heavy lifting, eh?

- I have a life to live ( GFY isn;t it )
- No need to feed trolls
- It's not rewarding to debate you, because it isn't a debate, but from your part a flow of words spitted out just like a parrot does.




Off to a nice friends reunion and dinner ...

Find someone else for your dellusions ...

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by RocHard

If the United States wanted her dead, she'd be dead already.

Bullshit. We want Bin Laden

[Workshop_Willy]

Originally Posted by Mojiteaux

Correction: the journalist never contradicted herself. She said from the start that there were floodlights coming from a US patrol that immediately opened fire. . . .

Au Contraire, mon frere:

But in an interview with Italian La 7 TV, Sgrena said, "There was no bright light, no signal."

Source -- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in541815.shtml

See also her additional backtracking at:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=440878