Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/5/05 12:03 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Right now there are 2 groups with completely different political agendas.

You were bringing up a good point, but then you lost me when you said, "The other group is the US military. Here they stick by strict displines, and report what should have happened"... if you have ever done any reading outside of an American history textbook, you would know that the military lies... a lot. Yes, I agree with you that they -should- report what has happened, but because we only say "You should report the truth", they tend to bend that word quite often.

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

Being told a nice story During the shooting? How could Nicola be telling her a nice story about Italy when he was dead?... or at least dying? Try not to twist the story around too much.

How could they tell the difference between an Italian and a car bomber when the vehicle was100-200 yards away?

A source would be appreciated on this figure, though you are right about the difference between an Italian car and a car bomber... (okay, should I just assume that the US was not informed that they were coming, given that they had just escaped?)

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.

Again, you make a good point, but could you provide the source where it says the 15-20 second warning? Much appreciated.

"Nicola Calipari was killed when he tried to shield the 56-year-old former hostage from gunfire as they approached a military checkpoint near the airport in Baghdad."

I've seen about all I need to, on this topic. Not only does the above quote aknowledge that the people in the car did, in fact, see the American checkpoint...it leads one to believe that they were planning on speeding through it.
Not only did they not stop, when they saw the checkpoint...but they maintained their speed, and Nicola covered the female.

Found here.

At 3/5/05 03:18 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: I've seen about all I need to, on this topic. Not only does the above quote aknowledge that the people in the car did, in fact, see the American checkpoint...it leads one to believe that they were planning on speeding through it.

Wow... the claims of US soldiers and that's all you need huh? If indeed ALL of what is being said is true, then -why- would they not stop or slow down? Why would they speed right through a checkpoint? I don't know, it sounds rather bizarre for them to act this way, because you would think that they would be relieved at the sight of a checkpoint, ie. what should have been safe ground.

ROFL, and people say Micheal Moore twists the facts.

At 3/5/05 12:03 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: No attempt at stopping or evading the shooting. Instead she was being given a nice story about what has been happening in Italy.

You make it sound like Bush listening to a tale about a goat while the WTC was being crippled.

"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,"

She was obviously talking to Nicola prior to and as the shooting began. Unless you think they waited till the shooting started to discuss Italy. But I doubt you're that stupid.

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,"

She says they "we weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation". Meaning they could have been going faster than they were considering she was just released from insurgents.

At 3/5/05 03:18 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: "Nicola Calipari was killed when he tried to shield the 56-year-old former hostage from gunfire as they approached a military checkpoint near the airport in Baghdad."

I've seen about all I need to, on this topic. Not only does the above quote aknowledge that the people in the car did, in fact, see the American checkpoint...it leads one to believe that they were planning on speeding through it.

LMAO, "quote"? Thats a reporters version of events, not a fuckin quote. If it were a quote from someone other than the reporter saying it it would have had "quotation" marks around it in the article, as it does not, it's not a quote.
"A" for effort, but you fail

And like I said, I only take this stance because US military is famous for fuckin up and killing innocent people. Like the last time a US soldier killed an Italian, actually 20 of them. A US soldier flying a Marine jet cut a SKI LIFT CABLE with his jet. Bombing weddings, blowing up UN convoys, the list goes on.

At 3/5/05 03:18 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: "Nicola Calipari was killed when he tried to shield the 56-year-old former hostage from gunfire as they approached a military checkpoint near the airport in Baghdad."
I've seen about all I need to, on this topic. Not only does the above quote aknowledge that the people in the car did, in fact, see the American checkpoint...it leads one to believe that they were planning on speeding through it.

LMAO, "quote"? Thats a reporters version of events, not a fuckin quote. If it were a quote from someone other than the reporter saying it it would have had "quotation" marks around it in the article, as it does not, it's not a quote.
"A" for effort, but you fail

Go back to what I said. Prove it wrong, or agree with it. You didn't adress the issue...you just gave me a review of what a 'quote' is.
It was 'quoted' from the article.

And like I said, I only take this stance because US military is famous for fuckin up and killing innocent people.

lol i've got half a dozen links all saying the same thing.
You find one to prove them wrong, or let it go until more information is released.
You've not a leg to stand on :-D

At 3/5/05 05:37 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

"Nicola Calipari was killed when he tried to shield the 56-year-old former hostage from gunfire as they approached a military checkpoint near the airport in Baghdad."

I've seen about all I need to, on this topic. Not only does the above quote aknowledge that the people in the car did, in fact, see the American checkpoint...it leads one to believe that they were planning on speeding through it.

Go back to what I said. Prove it wrong, or agree with it. You didn't adress the issue...you just gave me a review of what a 'quote' is.
It was 'quoted' from the article.

Ok, the reporter you quoted just reiterates that Nicola died while approaching the checkpoint. Nothing new. No aknowledgement of anything.

"Sgrena, a 57-year-old award-winning war reporter who was taken hostage on Feb. 4. while conducting interviews in Baghdad, said there had been no warning from the U.S. forces"

"The firing was not justified by the speed of our car," she [Sgrena] said, adding it was traveling at a "regular" speed.

Look at the quotes I found (Reuters and CTV), these aknowledge, in fact that there was NO WARNING FROM THE US FORCES, AND that the car was not speeding, it in fact was going at a "regular" speed. Which, will in fact prove this quote:

"we are at the mercy of idiots, frightened boys who shoot at anyone they come across,"

Guys, she didn't speed past a checkpoint, it was an open road. The American G.I.s were
on a patrol. She didn't have to stop. I am an Italian American, and I mourn the death of the Italian agent, but I am glad this event took place. Maybe Italy will wake up and pull out the 3,000 Italian troops in Iraq. This war keeps getting worse by the day.

Both sides are a little confused right now
I was just watching the news and it said:
The US guys say the car, waved for it to slow down and when it didnt opened fire
The reporter says there was no check point and it was a open road.
One way or the others I think it came down to the GIs not fully understanding what was happening and panik fire resulted (im not blaming them for that mind you, it happens all the time in a combat area)

The story is cloudy, but I believe the journalist, because journalists describe things all the time, it is their job. I also believe that the soldier who shot at the car is full of shit and is just trying to save his ass from Italian mobs. I and don't just say this 'cause i'm Italian.

At 3/5/05 05:21 PM, bcdemon wrote: At 3/5/05 12:03 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: No attempt at stopping or evading the shooting. Instead she was being given a nice story about what has been happening in Italy.

You make it sound like Bush listening to a tale about a goat while the WTC was being crippled.

"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,"

She was obviously talking to Nicola prior to and as the shooting began. Unless you think they waited till the shooting started to discuss Italy. But I doubt you're that stupid.

I'm not as dumb as you. Obviosly the story was continuing even during the shooting, you dumb fuck. That is simply what I was saying.

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,"

She says they "we weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation". Meaning they could have been going faster than they were considering she was just released from insurgents.

So what if she was released from insurgents? Did they have a bumper sticker on the car saying that they just got released from insurgents so they could be going as fast as they fucking want? Hell no. The world is filled with stupid people, and these Italians were among one of them. It's still a violent place, with people trying to car bomb, and create uprisings. They were journalists, they should have known to take it easy near military checkpoints.

At 3/5/05 12:21 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:

At 3/5/05 12:03 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Right now there are 2 groups with completely different political agendas.

You were bringing up a good point, but then you lost me when you said, "The other group is the US military. Here they stick by strict displines, and report what should have happened"... if you have ever done any reading outside of an American history textbook, you would know that the military lies... a lot. Yes, I agree with you that they -should- report what has happened, but because we only say "You should report the truth", they tend to bend that word quite often.

Eh, I get like that when I'm in a hurry to get onto the main point, sorry about that misunderstanding. But I did choose my words carefully when I was writing that sentence and I think you got what I was trying to infer.

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

Being told a nice story During the shooting? How could Nicola be telling her a nice story about Italy when he was dead?... or at least dying? Try not to twist the story around too much.

How could they tell the difference between an Italian and a car bomber when the vehicle was100-200 yards away?

A source would be appreciated on this figure, though you are right about the difference between an Italian car and a car bomber... (okay, should I just assume that the US was not informed that they were coming, given that they had just escaped?)

You should assume that the US was uninformed of the recent escapee. The 100 yards figure is what I'm guessing is the "safe" distance the US military would put out for a car speeding towards a checkpoint. It would take less then 3 seconds for a car to travel 100 yards if they were going 70 mph. So that's where I get that figure from. Simple mathematics, my friend, simple mathematics.

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.

Again, you make a good point, but could you provide the source where it says the 15-20 second warning? Much appreciated.

Again, simple mathematics, and a little bit of meteorology.
weather.com Right now the visibility at Baghdad is 6.2 miles. At the speed of 70 mph, if the soldiers saw them from this distance, they would have 5 minutes until the car reached the checkpoint. So to assume that they would at least have a 15-20 second time slot to be giving warnings to the oncoming car, which would be approximately 1500-2000 feet away, is quite feasible. (Actually I just rechecked that number, it is now down to 4.3 miles of visibility. Still that's 3.5 minutes until the car would reach the military checkpoint)

I imagine the soldiers probably wouldn't start putting up warning lights immediately. The normal procedure is probably for a vehicle to get within a certain distance and then start slowing down. I suppose that once the vehicle got within a mile or two and it wasn't slowing down that they really started to kick into gear.

I don't have any sources to back up the 100 yard figure, but 100-200 yards seems pretty typical based on my military experience.

Also, I don't know how other branches do it, but I was taught that the policy on deadly force is "shoot to stop" not "shoot to kill." The reasoning behind this is not to be PC or anything, but to minimize risk. A shot to the head will likely kill, but it's harder to do than a shot to the chest, which will stop someone just as well as a shot to the head. Similarly, with vehicles, we are trained to aim at the engine, as it is easier to disable the vehicle completely than to try and snipe the driver. I guess it's pretty obvious though that sometimes in order to stop someone, you have to kill them.

Incredible, some US soldier says they waved thier arms, used spot lights, and then fired warning shots before shooting the car. And most of you believe it as truth first hand.

So what do you say about what Sgrena said:

The car was travelling at "regular" speed.
And "there had been no warning from the U.S. forces"
And the fact that "It wasn't a checkpoint, but a patrol which shot as soon as it had lit us up with a spotlight. We had no idea where the shots were coming from."

Raven, nice bumper sticker thingy, although stupid it did make me chuckle. And where do you keep getting this 70mph speed if Sgrena (who was in the car) says it was travelling at regular speed? Are you making up this number to help your arguement?

At 3/6/05 09:32 AM, bcdemon wrote: Incredible, some US soldier says they waved thier arms, used spot lights, and then fired warning shots before shooting the car. And most of you believe it as truth first hand.

So what do you say about what Sgrena said:

The car was travelling at "regular" speed.
And "there had been no warning from the U.S. forces"
And the fact that "It wasn't a checkpoint, but a patrol which shot as soon as it had lit us up with a spotlight. We had no idea where the shots were coming from."

I'd say she was a contradictory puta. "Lit you guys up with a flashlight" , "no warning".... hmm, something doesn't seem right here.

Raven, nice bumper sticker thingy, although stupid it did make me chuckle. And where do you keep getting this 70mph speed if Sgrena (who was in the car) says it was travelling at regular speed? Are you making up this number to help your arguement?

I got the 70 mph speed from the initial reports from one of the initial reports, and I'm currently trying to find that. Also let's look at a "regular speed", which I am quoting Sgrena. That would be 56 mph for an open road, or if she would've considered the road a motorway, that would approximately be 81 mph. So to approximate that her mental "regular speed" is about 60-70 mph seems very appropiate.

Ok fools, this is how it happened, since apparently you cant understand it. They were riding down the rode; he was telling her about Italy. Gunshots fired. he leaned over her after hearing the gunshots, to protect her. UNTIL there was gunfire he had no reason to lean over her to protect her, so no to whoever said he was leaning over her because he saw the checkpoint, your an idiot. learn to comprehend what you read.

Secondly, everyone that said that they fired warning shots and the like were from the MILITARY. The US military has a history of fucking things up, and they would not openly come out and say that they fucked up again, therefore of course they will say they fired warning shots. The only "warning shots" fired were fired directly at the car. Also, the hostage that they were rescuing said there was NO warning shots fired. Now what reason does she have to say that no warning shots were fired if they really did fire them? She wouldn’t lose anything, she wouldn’t get in any trouble or whatnot, she wasn’t driving, so they couldn’t blame her for it. According to her they weren’t even going that fast (she should know, she was in the car). People need to use goddamn common sense. The US military is a bunch of trigger happy 18 year olds, blinded by the pro-war propaganda.

At 3/6/05 11:31 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: I'd say she was a contradictory puta. "Lit you guys up with a flashlight" , "no warning".... hmm, something doesn't seem right here.

A what? contradictory puta?
Anyway, are you saying she first said 'lit us up with a spotlight' and then said there was 'no warning'? Because that would be wrong.
She said, and I quote "shot as soon as it had lit us up with a spotlight" which obviously leaves no time for any type of warning whatsoever.

I got the 70 mph speed from the initial reports from one of the initial reports, and I'm currently trying to find that. Also let's look at a "regular speed", which I am quoting Sgrena. That would be 56 mph for an open road, or if she would've considered the road a motorway, that would approximately be 81 mph. So to approximate that her mental "regular speed" is about 60-70 mph seems very appropiate.

Well I read well over 2 dozen articles on this and I have yet to see an actual speed, not that it matters. But I just wanted to confirm that you were speculating, thanks.

At 3/4/05 08:20 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

I applaud the US soldiers for standing by protocol.

So i sopose its perfectly alright that a noble man died because of the marines shithededness. I was watching russian news. the say that they might have tried to kill her purposely. There is no reason that the italion agent shoudnt have stopped. I think its just a coverup for a bigger something. What? i dont knoe. But it woudnt come as a surprise.

Ok at the moment all we have is a statement from the military saying they did these things, but confirmation from witnesses. The driver was an Italian Agent. He would know what to do at a checkpoint, so its possible that the troops jumped the gun? I mean can anyoen at the moment prove they did what they said they do. iw oudl liek to hear what the reporter has to say first, and the outcome of the investigation.

The incident refered to with the Canadian troops in Afganistan. US Command said when the incedent happen all protocols were followed, but by the end of the joint-investigation the pilots involved were going to be court-marshalled. Perhaps the Pentagon is just trying to save face, perhaps the Italian agent fucked up, nobody knows yet.

What evidence do we have that what the article says is true. All we know is that 1)there is an italian agent dead. 2) he is dead because of american soldiers. Cant we assume that the italians were being chased. Can we also assume that the italian
was killed because the soldiers didnt fire warning shots? everything is not as it seems.

JusticeofSarcasm and IAMTHEGANGA, read all the posts, then maybe read some news. There are lots of articles explaining both sides of the story, military and Sgrena'.
Marines say they fired warning shots, Sgrena says they didn't, Marines said it was a US Military Checkpoint, Sgrena says it was a patrol. US military is pro-war, Sgrena is anti-war. Woops thinking outloud again.

And an example of this sort of event happening before:

March 31-03
A Toyota is cruising down the road approaching a US Military Checkpoint (an actual checkpoint with Bradleys and shit). Capt. Ronny Johnson positioned at the intersection was naturally alarmed, so he called ahead to an M2 Bradley to keep an eye on the Toyota. As the vehicle approached closer, Johnson was heard calling the order "Fire a warning shot," over the radio as the vehicle approached even closer. Then getting even more anxious Capt. Ronny Johnson ordered the 7.62 mm machine gunner to shoot out the radiator. "Stop [messing] around!" Johnson yelled into the company radio network when he still saw no action being taken. Finally, he shouted at the top of his voice, "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!"

Then, a barrage of 25mm cannon fire from the Bradleys tore into the Toyota, "Cease fire!" yells Johnson over the radio. Capt. Ronny Johnson looks at the Toyota through his binoculars and makes one last call over the radio to the platoon leader, "You just fucking killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!".

Google Capt. Ronny Johnson for the full story.

At 3/6/05 06:45 PM, bcdemon wrote: JusticeofSarcasm and IAMTHEGANGA, read all the posts, then maybe read some news.

As in I would like to hear more than just 3 sentences or see a US Command press-release. I want to hear what happens from this investigation. Thats the only real chance we have of getting what actually happend. And technically, I do not think the US has legal authority (if they ever did) to impose checkpoints, since Iraq now has its own civilian leadership.

Just posted on FARK, an American journalist's personal experience relating to Iraqi checkpoints.

"This personal account, filed prior to the shooting, explains how confusing and risky checkpoints can be - from both sides."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0307/p01s04-woiq.html

I think it is stupid for people who have never been in a warzone, let alone one like Iraq, to blame the grunts for being a little scared. Can you honestly say you wouldnt do that?

I think they are really getting a raw deal. I mean, its not like these soilders tell us that the entire US military wants to kill everyone.

And who really thinks they meant to kill the Italian? They were in a war zone and were frightened by a speeding car. What would you do?

Everyone take a step back, think about what would be racing through your mind if a car is still speeding at you after you fire warning shots. Put yourselves in their shoes.

At 3/6/05 06:45 PM, bcdemon wrote: Google Capt. Ronny Johnson for the full story.

It's been a year since that has happened, and the military probably has gotten their act together since then.

Did anyone read the article posted by ben_dont_jump?

It gives a compleatly different understanding of what cheackpoints are sometimes like, and sheds some light onto why innocent people sometimes get shot.

NO shit they didn't stop. If I had JUST almost been killed by iraqi terrorists, was driving through one of the most dangerouse roads in that same country, and someone started shooting my car, I am not about to pull over to see who it is.

At 3/6/05 09:54 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Everyone take a step back, think about what would be racing through your mind if a car is still speeding at you after you fire warning shots. Put yourselves in their shoes.

Which is exactly why I don't believe we should be recruiting kids to fight a war. Honestly, you rev them up, train them in combat, teach them to hate the enemy, then send them out without much knowledge of Iraq and how it functions... what else are you to expect? I don't blame the soldiers entirely, I blame the army which programs them.

Ok a couple of things.

A) For those of you who are insulting the US military and its soldiers, fuck off. I know plenty of service men and women, and they are not a bunch of morons, nor are they trigger, plus they HAVE a sense of morality.
B) If you carefully read the articles about what the Italian reporter said, you could see how she might have an agenda. Saying stuff such as she might have been the target. This coming from a woman, who seems to not like the US or what is going on in Iraq.
C)-Suddenly, she said, she remembered her captors’ words, when they warned her “to be careful because the Americans don’t want you to return.”- As for this, I mean really, like her captors would say something like that.

At 3/4/05 07:40 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: What if that car was a car bomber? How can the soldiers tell the difference?

Here's a suggestion, see if you agree:

"Hello people in a car, are you trying to kill us?"

Don't use a "what if" as a basis for an argument, especially since the real question is "what if US troops bothered to check their targets once in a while, rather than open fire at anything that moves, as per usual?"

Besides, isn't that the defence Lee Clegg tried to use before being imprisoned for shooting at a car in Belfast, assuming it was IRA terrorists coming towards his checkpoint?

I'm not instantly going to believe what the soldiers say because even if they did it, they're gloing to lie to cover their backs. Plus we can't forget the time the US military shot one of our planes down, so it would hardly be a surprise if this one was their fault.