Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/4/05 09:15 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: Yeah, I just saw this on the BBC News tonight... that's what you get for putting a group of 18 year olds behind triggers.

Or, that's what you get when you put irresponsible Italians behind the wheel of a car.

They claimed they fired warning shots... uh huh... Suuuure they did.

The report, every web site, and every news station said they fired warning shots.
Your opinion does not stand against the consensus.

And even if they did, the people may not have known that it was the Americans who were firing, and then even if they knew it was the Americans firing, they would not necessarily know for what purpose (does a warning shot sound any different than one directed at an enemy militia?).

If it had just been shooting, then sure. But think about this.
A car, with these Italians, is driving down the road. The American Roadblock is off in the distance, blocking the road. The American's wave their arms, hold up their hands in the universal 'stop' symbol. The American's flash lights at the driver of the car, in an attempt to warn him. The shoot a shot or two into the air. They then shoot into the bumber and hood, to further warn the Italians. It wasn't until the American's were downright forced to fire, that they did.
Now, ask yourself...was the driver of the car even watching the road? Did he look elsewhere while the Americans tried to flag him down, with hand motions? Was he fiddling with the radio while they shone lights through the windsheild? Did he not hear the shots being fired into the air? Did he not notice the bullets that pierced his call?

Again, I applaude the American military for standing by protocol.

The question that came to my mind right away when I saw it on the news... Why were the US troops not warned about the arrival of the reporter?!?!?! Hmmm, you would think that this would be good information to know, just so incidents like this don't occurr.

Even if they were warned...the car had no choice but to stop. America is not giving you an option: Stop your car, or be fired upon.

At 3/4/05 09:33 PM, bcdemon wrote: Excuse me if I don't take the word of a US soldier for fact before hearing any other reports, they tend to look out for thier best interest first.

It wasn't just the US soldiers. It was eyewitnesses. The reports were verified. Every news source in America reported the same constant: Warning shots were fired. The Italians chose not to stop.
I applaud you for wanting other sources, besides a soldier. But if you had watched the evening news, on any station, your disbelief would be sated.

At 3/4/05 09:41 PM, bcdemon wrote: Through? They didn't speed "through" the checkpoint. And they couldnt stop "AT" the checkpoint like you and damien say, they never reached the checkpoint.

If someone is speeding towards a checkpoint, then that's obviously a cause for alarm.

"At approximately 8:55 p.m. tonight, coalition forces assigned to the multinational force in Iraq fired on a vehicle that was approaching a coalition checkpoint in Baghdad at a high rate of speed," the military said in a statement.

The Italians' car made no move to slow down despite signals and warning shots, so U.S. forces fired into its engine block, the statement said.

Can anyone say that if they were driving a car in Iraq and heard shots, that they'd actually slow down or stop?

It was a horrible mistake. Saying they had it coming or some crap because they didn't slow down is just... argh. I don't know, it seems very ignorant or stubborn or something. I'm not quite sure. :X

The other intelligence officers in the car, as well as the journalist, should be able to shed light on why the driver kept going, and all that stuff in the upcoming days.

At 3/4/05 09:45 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: It wasn't just the US soldiers. It was eyewitnesses. The reports were verified. Every news source in America reported the same constant: Warning shots were fired. The Italians chose not to stop.
I applaud you for wanting other sources, besides a soldier. But if you had watched the evening news, on any station, your disbelief would be sated.

Actually I did watch my evening news, they said the same thing every single article I have read so far said:

The US 3rd Infantry Division, which controls Baghdad, said that....
Marine Sergeant Salju Thomas by telephone from Baghdad....
A statement from US-led coalition forces in Baghdad....
A statement from US forces in Baghdad....
The US military confirmed the incident....

If you can offer up 1 non-military eyewitness account then fine, but I have yet to find one.

At 3/4/05 09:59 PM, bcdemon wrote: If you can offer up 1 non-military eyewitness account then fine, but I have yet to find one.

So you think that the military is in a cover up conspiracy?

Oh right, all Americans are conniving bastards that can do no right. Silly me.

At 3/4/05 09:57 PM, ben_dont_jump wrote: It was a horrible mistake. Saying they had it coming or some crap because they didn't slow down is just... argh. I don't know, it seems very ignorant or stubborn or something. I'm not quite sure. :X

Clarification: I'm not saying the coalition forces were wrong, but I am saying that just because the Italian intelligence officer was speeding through the roadblock doesn't mean that he was wrong, either.

He wasn't just out for a drive around the block, down to the nearest 7-11 for a bit o' milk, you know? He had just helped negotiate the release of a hostage and was trying to get her back to safety from an area that's very dangerous. You see armed people running about, trying to get you to stop and.. what if these are insurgents? I don't know how the situation was, I can't say if there's a clear, easily distinguishable difference between an iraqi insurgent with a gun and a coalition soldier with a gun when you're travelling at high speeds trying to get out of an area.

It was a horrible mistake. :x

***whoops i meant meaning to disable***

close but i meant i cant blame them for killing/ shooting the car but whatever.

Ugh... given that it is you who responded to this I wonder if I should even bother... Just, do me a favour and read what I wright, and not anticipate to counter what I have to say, Jim... that really get's annoying when you grow that tunnel-vision of yours that you have.

At 3/4/05 09:23 PM, Jimsween wrote:

You have absolutely no evidence that they didn't. The fact that you automatically assume they didn't makes me assume your just out to make the soldiers look bad. And as for them not being able to know if it was a warning shot, well then they should have been paying more attention, maybe the roadblock ahead would give some indication.

You're absolutely right, I have no evidence. I just know that the army sometimes makes claims to acts they have committed and sometimes add some things to the story, or change this to that, so that they don't seem as guilty. I didn't -automatically- assume this, I am just raising the issue that there may not have been warning shots. I won't know until the investigation is finished (although even then the evidence can be questionable... I guess to truly know, you would have to of been there).

I think you may have mis-understood what I was referring to by the "warning shot". Imagine that you are accompanying a woman who has just recently been freed from the captivity of a group for over a month. As you approach the destination of freedom, you hear gunshots. They may have thought that there was a group trying to take her back before she was liberated, so they continued towards the only sign of safety that was up ahead... unfortunately, it was this safe ground which was firing upon them. "Warning shots" and "Active gunfire" have no distinction, so how were they to know that they were being 'warned'?

Maybe the Italians didn't tell them?

This is why I ask, I am anxious to hear what they discover through the investigation.

Right on man!

At 3/4/05 09:45 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: Or, that's what you get when you put irresponsible Italians behind the wheel of a car.

Yep, that's another way of looking at it.

The report, every web site, and every news station said they fired warning shots.
Your opinion does not stand against the consensus.

I think this has already been addressed by others, but if you read where they received all this information, it is only from American Soldiers. I would like to hear another perspective if we are able to obtain one.

If it had just been shooting, then sure. But think about this.
A car, with these Italians, is driving down the road. The American Roadblock is off in the distance, blocking the road. The American's wave their arms, hold up their hands in the universal 'stop' symbol. The American's flash lights at the driver of the car, in an attempt to warn him. The shoot a shot or two into the air. They then shoot into the bumber and hood, to further warn the Italians. It wasn't until the American's were downright forced to fire, that they did.

I don't believe the investigation has been completed yet, so how do you know all of this happened. If this all had indeed happened, then yes, perhaps it was at the fault of the Italians. I would first need to know the answer to my question of "if the Americans were warned of the arrival". We shall see.

Now, ask yourself...was the driver of the car even watching the road? Did he look elsewhere while the Americans tried to flag him down, with hand motions? Was he fiddling with the radio while they shone lights through the windsheild? Did he not hear the shots being fired into the air? Did he not notice the bullets that pierced his call?

lol... fiddling with the radio, looking in another direction, deaf to the gunfire... this has to be one of the most irresponsible government agents I have ever heard of! lol

Again, I applaude the American military for standing by protocol.

If they did, so would I. We still have to know the answers first.

Even if they were warned...the car had no choice but to stop. America is not giving you an option: Stop your car, or be fired upon.

Love that good old American logic. But again... how far away were they when they were fired upon? What measures were taken to give them warning? Again... the investigation.

At 3/4/05 09:33 PM, bcdemon wrote: Excuse me if I don't take the word of a US soldier for fact before hearing any other reports, they tend to look out for thier best interest first.

It wasn't just the US soldiers. It was eyewitnesses. The reports were verified. Every news source in America reported the same constant: Warning shots were fired. The Italians chose not to stop.

The same News sources that said Gore had won the election back in 2001 prematurely? Hmmm... And again, as bcdemon said... show me one non-american military eyewitness testimony, and it may change my mind. If you haven't noticed, they don't exactly like having bad press on thier actions, and would do anything to prevent it, even lie. *gasp* I hope that hasn't broken your innocence that the military is capable of such actions! It's almost like finding out Santa Clause isn't real for the first time. I wouldn't want to be the one who subjected you to such horrors.

I applaud you for wanting other sources, besides a soldier. But if you had watched the evening news, on any station, your disbelief would be sated.

^^^ above.... looking for a witness that wasn't a soldier. Though the investigation would be ideal before I make up my mind (and even then...sadly...).

But if you don't think the military is capable of such kinds of cover ups, read some works by Noam Chomsky.

At 3/4/05 10:04 PM, Z17 wrote: So you think that the military is in a cover up conspiracy?

Oh right, all Americans are conniving bastards that can do no right. Silly me.

Excuse me for not being a sheep and believing the first and ONLY report available.

I conceed the fact that there may be some deep, great, and terrible coverup...regarding this situation. Sure, it's a possibility. News stations get it wrong, sometimes.
But it's plausible. It's real fucking plausible. It actually makes perfect sense, to me.

But, we shall see. In coming days, more about this story will be available to us.

Ok the time is 8:55 in the northern hemisphere. It is typically dark around this time. A startling fact about guns is that they make a large blast, and at night it is easily noticeable to where these blasts come from. Obviously if the Italian driver saw this and thought that it was possibly the insurgency, then he would turn around. Did he? Nah...

The way I heard the story reported said that the driver of the car ignored flashing lights and hand singals used by the soldiers in an attempt to get them to stop. Considering that a US soldier in Iraq is under the constant threat of attack from carbombers I'm not surprised they opened fire. It's tragic that this had to happen, especially since the deceased Italian officer was apparantly a pretty good negotiator who may have been able to help future hostages, but they should have stopped the car at the checkpoint.

You know what, you're right, it is dark out, so the chance of seeing someone waving thier arms at you from whatever distance MIGHT be hard to see. Then the gunfire might add some instability to the situation. And Maybe the warning shot let out by the soldiers (in the dark) killed the driver which would explain why the car kept comming at them. Maybe the driver thought the soldiers were firing at some insurgents who were following them. Were there insurgents following them? And maybe damien is absolutely correct. Maybe maybe maybe.

At 3/5/05 12:56 AM, bcdemon wrote: You know what, you're right, it is dark out, so the chance of seeing someone waving thier arms at you from whatever distance MIGHT be hard to see.

How about the flashing lights, then? What did the driver think of the madly waving lights, shining into his vehicle?

Then the gunfire might add some instability to the situation. And Maybe the warning shot let out by the soldiers (in the dark) killed the driver which would explain why the car kept comming at them.

lol.

Maybe maybe maybe.

We could do this all day. Maybe the driver of the car, he was really Osama Bin Laden, and that's why he didn't stop?

At 3/5/05 12:58 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: How about the flashing lights, then? What did the driver think of the madly waving lights, shining into his vehicle?

We could do this all day. Maybe the driver of the car, he was really Osama Bin Laden, and that's why he didn't stop?

I don't know what the Italian driver in Iraq thought about the lights. I'm a roofer from Canada.
And we could speculate all day, but I'll stop and wait for more reports.

After everything i've seen happen in Iraq I've come to the conclusion that 3/4 of the US army is a bunch of trigger-happy 18 year olds who just wanted to shoot things for a living. I seriously doubt they fired warning shots, expessially if there was no eyewitness reports other than that of the military. Of course the military will say they fired warning shots, even if they didin't. If they went and said they fired NO warning shots, think of the reaction from the public! They most likely saw the car coming, and the trigger-happy 18 yr old part of them thought "its a muslim, shoot". IMHO we need to get those trigger-happy children out of Iraq ASAP, before we make even more enemies.

If this car is going at "high speeds" then how did they even see the hand signals and lights. They'd have to be pretty far back for the soldiers to wave their hands at them, flash lights, then fire some warning shots, and then finally take out the car all before it reached the checkpoint. I doubt they even saw the hand signals.
What would you do if you had just got away from insurgents and then lights are pointed at you and your shot at?

Overall I'm not surprised... Americans can get away with anything really... but when it comes to something small and insignificant as a casualty of war they make a huge deal out of it and show the people how we punish people who do the same thing as the rest of us...

At 3/4/05 09:15 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: They claimed they fired warning shots... uh huh... Suuuure they did. And even if they did, the people may not have known that it was the Americans who were firing, and then even if they knew it was the Americans firing, they would not necessarily know for what purpose (does a warning shot sound any different than one directed at an enemy militia?).

We know for a fact that they fired warning shots. According to witnesses, every attempt was made to warn them to slow down, and every attempt was made to avoid shooting at the car (which was going in excess of 70MPH). The last time a car was speeding at a checkpoint that fast and the soldiers did not fire at it, 7 soldiers died in the explosion. The American soldiers are NOT to blame, although all the anti-American bastards out there will blame them immediately (I can see a few of you in this thread). It is in fact the driver of the car who is to blame, since the Americans followed every protocol and made every attempt to warn them to slow down.

At 3/5/05 08:22 AM, Draconias wrote: According to witnesses.... (which was going in excess of 70MPH).....

We know about the military eyewitness account, and we have stated our belief in them, or lack of. And where did you hear 70mph? If you have some "facts" the rest of us aren't privy to, then maybe you can share them with us, and the source of course.

At 3/4/05 10:52 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: You're absolutely right, I have no evidence. I just know that the army sometimes makes claims to acts they have committed and sometimes add some things to the story, or change this to that, so that they don't seem as guilty. I didn't -automatically- assume this, I am just raising the issue that there may not have been warning shots. I won't know until the investigation is finished (although even then the evidence can be questionable... I guess to truly know, you would have to of been there).

You don't get it. It's almost impossible to find any evidence of this. All we have are thier testimonies. This is the most we'll know.

Raising the point that they may have lied is pointess, because you have no evidence to prove something like that, versus the testimonies of US soldiers.

I think you may have mis-understood what I was referring to by the "warning shot". Imagine that you are accompanying a woman who has just recently been freed from the captivity of a group for over a month. As you approach the destination of freedom, you hear gunshots. They may have thought that there was a group trying to take her back before she was liberated, so they continued towards the only sign of safety that was up ahead... unfortunately, it was this safe ground which was firing upon them. "Warning shots" and "Active gunfire" have no distinction, so how were they to know that they were being 'warned'?

Yes I know they were in a sticky situation, and they panicked. COMPLETELY understandable, but still reckless, and it got several people killed.

At 3/5/05 10:42 AM, Jimsween wrote: You don't get it. It's almost impossible to find any evidence of this. All we have are thier testimonies. This is the most we'll know.

The sad thing is, I DO get it. That is why I am saying I will wait for the inspection to be done before I can make a solid argument, just as you have no solid argument for the american soldiers. I mean honestly, IF (pure speculation) the soldiers DID fire without warning, imagine what this kind of bad publicity would do for not only the American Army, but America itself. Think of all the times that some wreckless troops fired at an Iraqi or vehicle, realized that these people weren't terrorists, but simply wrote it off as a "terrorist" or a "victim of war".... sadly, they couldn't do it for this case, given that this news reporter was EXPECTED to come back to freedom. Is it -really- that far fetched? I don't say this because I'm trying to show how "bad" America looks, I'm saying this because it is a reality in war, and this time the army has to be held accountable for it's actions if the case is that they were wreckless.

Raising the point that they may have lied is pointess, because you have no evidence to prove something like that, versus the testimonies of US soldiers.

And you saying that the testimonies of US soldiers is pointless too because why would they fess up to such a blunder? To say, "Yep, everyone's fears of our guilty actions has been realized by this case, we're nothing but a bunch of Americans who shoot first and ask questions later". I was only raising the issue, because as you can see, it is easy for people to buy the testimonies of American Soldiers as Truth, when it may not be the case. I don't deny that the Italians were at fault, just look at one of my previous answers where I said, "Yep, that's another way of looking at it."

Yes I know they were in a sticky situation, and they panicked. COMPLETELY understandable, but still reckless, and it got several people killed.

We can only speculate on this issue... we have no 'proof' as of yet aside from the ones who were doing the shooting.

At 3/5/05 08:22 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 3/4/05 09:15 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: They claimed they fired warning shots... uh huh... Suuuure they did. And even if they did, the people may not have known that it was the Americans who were firing, and then even if they knew it was the Americans firing, they would not necessarily know for what purpose (does a warning shot sound any different than one directed at an enemy militia?).

We know for a fact that they fired warning shots. According to witnesses, every attempt was made to warn them to slow down, and every attempt was made to avoid shooting at the car (which was going in excess of 70MPH). The last time a car was speeding at a checkpoint that fast and the soldiers did not fire at it, 7 soldiers died in the explosion. The American soldiers are NOT to blame, although all the anti-American bastards out there will blame them immediately (I can see a few of you in this thread). It is in fact the driver of the car who is to blame, since the Americans followed every protocol and made every attempt to warn them to slow down.

yea, and is it any surprise that those eyewitnesses were from the military? As i said before, of COURSE the military will say they fired warning shots, idiot. They arent going to say they didin't. think of what the public would say. Man some people here are idiots.

At 3/5/05 11:27 AM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

The sad thing is, I DO get it. That is why I am saying I will wait for the inspection to be done before I can make a solid argument, just as you have no solid argument for the american soldiers.

I have the most solid argument possible for this situation. Nothing will come of the inspection, nothing can come, what could they possibly discover?

I mean honestly, IF (pure speculation) the soldiers DID fire without warning, imagine what this kind of bad publicity would do for not only the American Army, but America itself.

It's not far fetched, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it.

And you saying that the testimonies of US soldiers is pointless too because why would they fess up to such a blunder?

Essentially, thier testimonies are not worth much. But by default they are innocent. Therein lies the conclusion.

UPDATE!

Right now there are 2 groups with completely different political agendas. One would be the Italians. If you read all of the reports you would realize that she was against the war and reporting it in a similar fashion. The other group is the US military. Here they stick by strict displines, and report what should have happened. Let me analyze what she said...

"There was suddenly this shooting, we were hit by a hail of gunfire, and I was speaking with Nicola, who was telling me about what had been happening in Italy in the meantime, when he leaned towards me, probably also to protect me,"

No attempt at stopping or evading the shooting. Instead she was being given a nice story about what has been happening in Italy.

She said the shooting continued "because the driver wasn't even managing to explain that we were Italian"

How could they tell the difference between an Italian and a car bomber when the vehicle was100-200 yards away? This is an irrational reasoning and the Italians provided no thought to their safety in a country riddled with violence.

Asked if the car was going too fast when the US troops opened fire, she said: "We weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation."

She acknowledges that she was going fast in this statement; she states that they had a reason to go that fast because of the "situation," even though they didn't think about anyone besides themselves going that fast. Like what I've been saying, what if that car was a car bomber? There is no WAY that the soldiers can know in a matter of 15-20 seconds when a car is speeding feverishly into the checkpoint.

I don't blame the soldiers, at least from the reports I have read and seen on TV there were warnings to slow down or stop, as well as warning shots fired.

I hope that a lot of people don't get into a frenzie about this because this isn't nearly as bad as some of the other things that the US has done, this was a simple and honest mistake if you ask me.