It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US forces shoot at car containing freed Italian hostage and kill Italian secret service agent.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Yeah I remember the blue on blue accidents within national forces, both US and British. I hadn't heard of the Danish one. Must be a very difficult thing to live with, killing your own comrade. Unfortunately I have to register to see the Mercury News article. I usually post from theage.com.au who sometimes offer a registration form too instead of the article but it's a random thing.

I think friendly fire from one country on to another in a multinational coalition is quite different though. Citizenry do not take kindly to hearing news that their troops have been killed or injured by another national force within the coalition. These things happen, but it's likely an avoidable error. That is until it starts happening often enough for people to start questioning whether it is much of an error at all.

It's one thing to do your ally a favour and provide support and assistance to their cause. But it's another when the result of doing so brings avoidable deaths by the hands of said ally. This really pisses people off. Particularly the already pissed off Italians. And I'm sure everyone can understand that.




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo Unfortunately I have to register to see the Mercury News article.


Sorry about that, here's another article:

In the line of friendly fire



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Jedi, are you slow? Can you read?

I NEVER came out and said they fired 4-500 shots! Someone else said that. I was just cracking on that because it seemed like a pretty ridiculous excuse, I mean explanation.

Maybe you should go back and re-read page 2.


[edit on 6-3-2005 by truthseeka]


DC1

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   


The US military said the Americans used hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and fired warning shots to get the car to stop.

But in an interview with Italian La 7 TV, Sgrena said ''there was no bright light, no signal, and at a certain point, from one side, a firestorm erupted''.


Tonight, again over the phone and on Channel 5 News (Berlusconi's) she stated that it wasn't a patrol but a TANK... and that she remembers no warning shots - only a flooding white light, and immediate shooting. She says they were 700 meters from the airport itself.

The news continued saying that Nicola Calipari died of one single lethal shot to the head.

Contradictions are piling up...



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Isn't it obvious that if you have a coalition force in a foreign country (neither Americans nor Italians speak arabic) you are going to have friendly fire and incidents like this and the British APC that got toasted?

I'm all for ending this war and trying to reason with Islamists, but to say that the US is just killing indiscriminately is not true. Soldiers are human and they can make errors, in fact they DO make errors in lots of cases. Military training does not create free-thinkers who can respond to threats with analysis. No, instead it makes people who follow orders and if there is a situation that threatens his buddies, ANY soldier will shoot.

These guys follow orders. You can knock the PNAC and their warmongering (I do this gladly) but to knock America and say we are random killers is absurd.





[edit on 6-3-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Ace of Base says:

" but this incident proves they shoot at just about anyone."

Ace, it doesn't matter to me what your views are regarding US involvement in Iraq.

You are certainly entitled to your views, as I am to mine.

And I certainly enjoy reading editorial and opinion pieces by peole of all ranges of viewpoints; both those that mirror mine, and those that differ from mine.

But when someone posts a news article, that person is supposed to do just that, saying something like,

"According to news reports, thus and so happened at this place at this time on this date, and the rsults were such and such. The one set of buys said that 'blah blah blah', while the other guys responded with 'blah blah blah'."

That is what journalism is about, Ace of Base -- an attempt to be objective and report the news.

Now I understand that you're not objective, nor are you a journalist, and you are perfectly within your rights to slant the story any way you choose.

It's just that when you do, you lose credibility with people who look to you for facts as opposed to opinion.

And that's why I don't bother reading your "news" posts any more. I don't know whether or not you're telling the truith, but your biases are just to obvious and overt for me to trust you.

Ironically, my views may be quite close to yours; I just try to be honest about reporting news versus reporting opinions.

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
But when someone posts a news article, that person is supposed to do just that, saying something like,

"According to news reports, thus and so happened at this place at this time on this date, and the rsults were such and such. The one set of buys said that 'blah blah blah', while the other guys responded with 'blah blah blah'."

That is what journalism is about, Ace of Base -- an attempt to be objective and report the news.


This was not an ATSNN article, it was a RANT about something that made me very angry. If I had waited a while before posting and allowed the emotions to subside a little the post may not have been as biased.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
This event reads like what I have read before from soldiers who claim they were given false information from military intelligence and fired upon innocent targets. Which explains why the attack happened, but no follow up bullet to the head took place after the initial attack. Military intelligence most likely assumed nobody would survive such a torrential barrage. Looks like their assumption was off. In any case, with little physical evidence and victims vs. government versions of what happened as the only evidence other than the dead and wounded, plausible deniability can enter into this case and remove doubt for most.

As for Sgrena's captors and what they claimed about the U.S. not wanting to see her go back to Italy. If you actually lived in Iraq, you probably do know the score of what the U.S. does and doesn't do. There is no media filter. Of course they are the enemy, but that doesn't mean that the enemy doesn't actually know what is going on. In this case, I think her captors were likely just a rogue group of Iraqis looking for money and kidnapping any westerner they could find for ransom. No U.S. plan there except for the murder scheme through false information.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Frith]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Giuliana Sgrena: The Truth
Giuliana Sgrena: La verita (Il Manifesto)


Timeline: Kidnapping of Giuliana Sgrena
Giuliana Sgrena, 56, a senior reporter for the Italian daily paper Il Manifesto,
was kidnapped by gunmen in the centre of Baghdad on 4 February.
She had just interviewed inhabitants of Fallujah who had taken refuge
in a mosque on the Baghdad University campus.

48 journalists and media assistants killed
since the start of fighting in Iraq in March 2003,
four still missing
(Source: Reporters Without Borders)

Watch some CBS News, KTVT and BBC video clips
related to the shooting at the car
carrying the Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari
and ex-hostage Giuliana Sgrena to freedom:

1 2 3 4

What really happened?

MarioPro



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
My take on it is that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The Italians probably thought that the U.S. military was notified, but they weren't, at least they weren't notified at the field level.

They probably didn't respond fast enough to the comand to stop.

The soldiers at the checkpoint probably could have waited a second longer to see if they would indeed stop.

It is a danderous place.

S*it happens.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
This just in...

The soldiers involved in this shooting were being investigated last year for raping Iraqi women. The soldiers had conflicting stories and some seemed to know little of the alleged assaults. However, some claimed that the women were hookers and others denied having sex in Iraq at all. Point is, these guys seem to have a little track record of misbehaving...



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
If what you say is true, then more weight is placed on the theory that the shooting was deliberate.

They get a bunch of losers to shoot the Italians, if it screws up, they can hang them out to fry with that bad record.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
i heard they did no slow down when closeing in on a check point, they should have stoped. what are they idiots do they not know that they could have been mistaken for a carbomber



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
The shooters are now free of charges. The american investigators have come to the conclusion that the soldiers were right to spray this car with bullets.

I say: *cough* "assassination attempt" *cough*...



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Well this angers me me because Italy was a strong ally on the war on terrorism.
now the Prime Minister has been voted out and the majority of Italians want no further part of this war(can't blame them). Bush's Mismanagement of this war is costing us allys.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Did you seriously think that anybody from US Army would be Charged with anything in this case?

I dont think so.

I guess they didnt stop when they should.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
its understandable since the unit that shot up the car lost 2 of their members couple of days ago to a car bomb. not suprise. the insurgents take advantage of americans soldiers hesitation to shoot up a car unless they feel threatened.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   


This event reads like what I have read before from soldiers who claim they were given false information from military intelligence and fired upon innocent targets.


This is where I'd place my bets as to what happened.
The soldiers were probably told they were shooting at a car containing "terrorists" and told to take it out. Telling them they were assasinating a journalist from an allied country would likely spark some dissent in the ranks, most US soldiers not being fanatics.

Then after it's all over, they're sworn to maintain secrecy about this "mistake" from their commanders, with some BS about how they are "protecting the country" because it would mke the leadership look bad. The soldiers, not wanting to be "unpatriotic", do what they're told is their duty and keep their mouths shut.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   


The shooting reportedly occurred at a coalition checkpoint in western Baghdad. The car was traveling at high speeds, prompting American troops warn the driver to stop by using "hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots," the military said. When that didn't work, GIs shot into the engine block, according to the military.



they did what they were supposed to do !!!

Bottom Line - Enough already....



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
they did what they were supposed to do !!!

Bottom Line - Enough already....



There is a lot of dispute from Sgrena and the driver of the vehicle that the soldiers did not give the warnings that they said they did.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join