Still No Report…
As many of you know, WE’re waiting on a chance to see the Italian report on the Sgrena incident of 4 March. See, after seeing what our military has to say in regard to the incident, bot of us agree that the troops did their jobs. But to truly be "balanced" and "unbiased" we are waiting—rather impatiently, I add—to see what the Italians have to say. As that hasn’t happened yet, we’re forced to go where we dislike to fall back on. That would be the MSM. (I despise giving ANY recognition to those piranhas, and pariahs, so I went with the Washington Times.)
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050503-120205-9646r.htm
Italy yesterday blamed "stress and inexperience" among U.S. troops for the shooting death of its top intelligence agent in Baghdad but accepted that he was killed accidentally.
"Stress and inexperience" are code words for "our agent screwed up". The accident came in the foul-up Calipari made in not notifying our commanders he was in the field, and on the mission he was on. Granted, I understand "classified" or "need to know" as much as any intel operative, however if your mission isn’t completed until you’re out of country, wouldn’t it be smart to notify the "occupying force"? (Yes, I despise the term.) Had you done so, you would’ve avoided your untimely demise.
The Italian report also said the speed of the car carrying the agent as it approached a U.S. checkpoint on the Baghdad airport road was "irrelevant," according to the semiofficial ANSA news agency.
The speed of the car has a serious relevance. Based on the information given in our report, the troops had between three and five seconds to react. That isn’t a whole helluva lot of time for our troops to react, but nine other statements corroborate the first one. They have stated that they flashed lights in the car’s direction, gave hand signals, shouted in different languages prior to ANY shots being fired. If you haven’t ever been in a combat situation—one deemed hostile in a heartbeat—don’t argue this point. You have no knowledge to base your supposition from.
The Italian driver of their car "was not in a hurry to reach the airport, the road surface was wet, he knew that the curve of the [checkpoint] ramp was partially obstructed by three barriers and he was driving with one hand as he prepared to make a 90-degree turn because his other hand was busy with a cell phone," ANSA quoted the Italian report as saying.
On a cell phone? I thought that only happened in America where an idiot paying more attention to his phone than driving caused an accident. That is what this incident was. It was an accident. It was an accident waiting to happen at the ineptitude of the driver and the intel operative that lost his life. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
"The speed does not seem relevant insofar as there were no warning signals," the report said, adding that the driver insisted that "at the moment when fire opened, the car was traveling at approximately [25 to 35 mph]."
If that’s true then how did the car cross close to 100 yards in less than five seconds. It’s not possible. Not at a maximum speed of 35 mph it can’t, and I’d truly like to see a car do that. It was almost 100 yards between the car being spotted to where it was stopped with troops using lethal force; and that force was utilized when it crossed the 50 yard mark. It’s standard operating procedure (SOP) at a checkpoint that there is a point of no return where troops have the ability to utilize such force, and the car carrying Sgrena and Calipari crossed it.
The American troops had not issued warning signals and had "fired out of stress and inexperience," the report said. It also said evidence at the scene had been removed, making a full investigation more difficult.
This is false. Each statement made by the troops HIGHLIGHTED that point. They did try to warn the car. But in the time span allotted for the incident, with a driver screwing with a cell phone, is there any surprise in the actions of our troops. The driver is—seemingly and obviously ignoring the signals—and trying to operate a cell phone while driving a car going in excess of 60 mph. Duh. But it had little to do with the stress and inexperience of our troops.
The report was diametrically opposed in many respects to the outcome of an American investigation, which found that the car had been traveling at speeds of at least 50 mph and that the driver had ignored repeated warnings to stop.
It was, and he did.
The Italian report said it was "plausible" that the U.S. chain of command was not formally aware of the specific content of Mr. Calipari's mission, as the U.S. report had found.
We weren’t made aware of Calipari’s existence in Iraq until just prior to the incident. We didn’t know he was there, nor were we told why he was there. This is a FACT that Gen. Mario Marioli backs up. Marioli was the second in command of coalition forces in Iraq, and the senior Italian officer in the field. Calipari was required to speak with him, but ordered him to reveal nothing of his mission to other coalition forces.
But, the Italians said, it is "indisputably certain and confirmed" that the Americans were informed of the arrival of Mr. Calipari and another agent of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service, and that they were "carrying out an institutional activity," according to ANSA.
We were informed approximately 20 minutes prior to the incident occurring. What are we supposed to do? Marioli offered our commanders nothing, so were they just supposed to open every checkpoint, and let whatever wanted to come through just wander on past? I think not.
The report said the organization of the American checkpoint was "to say the least deficient," but "the Italian representatives on the commission ... have not found anything to suggest that the facts and matters that led to the tragedy were deliberate in any way."
I’ll give these bastards "deficient". How about this: They’re taking the word of a communist journalist, working for a communist newspaper, that hasn’t been able to keep her story straight from the start. And anyone who disputes that can follow the link below. It’s to my other half’s original site. Check her March archives. Sgrena was drum she liked to beat on back then.
http://journals.aol.com/prplsatnbunny/ConservativeThoughtsFromBunnysMi/
Publius II
As many of you know, WE’re waiting on a chance to see the Italian report on the Sgrena incident of 4 March. See, after seeing what our military has to say in regard to the incident, bot of us agree that the troops did their jobs. But to truly be "balanced" and "unbiased" we are waiting—rather impatiently, I add—to see what the Italians have to say. As that hasn’t happened yet, we’re forced to go where we dislike to fall back on. That would be the MSM. (I despise giving ANY recognition to those piranhas, and pariahs, so I went with the Washington Times.)
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050503-120205-9646r.htm
Italy yesterday blamed "stress and inexperience" among U.S. troops for the shooting death of its top intelligence agent in Baghdad but accepted that he was killed accidentally.
"Stress and inexperience" are code words for "our agent screwed up". The accident came in the foul-up Calipari made in not notifying our commanders he was in the field, and on the mission he was on. Granted, I understand "classified" or "need to know" as much as any intel operative, however if your mission isn’t completed until you’re out of country, wouldn’t it be smart to notify the "occupying force"? (Yes, I despise the term.) Had you done so, you would’ve avoided your untimely demise.
The Italian report also said the speed of the car carrying the agent as it approached a U.S. checkpoint on the Baghdad airport road was "irrelevant," according to the semiofficial ANSA news agency.
The speed of the car has a serious relevance. Based on the information given in our report, the troops had between three and five seconds to react. That isn’t a whole helluva lot of time for our troops to react, but nine other statements corroborate the first one. They have stated that they flashed lights in the car’s direction, gave hand signals, shouted in different languages prior to ANY shots being fired. If you haven’t ever been in a combat situation—one deemed hostile in a heartbeat—don’t argue this point. You have no knowledge to base your supposition from.
The Italian driver of their car "was not in a hurry to reach the airport, the road surface was wet, he knew that the curve of the [checkpoint] ramp was partially obstructed by three barriers and he was driving with one hand as he prepared to make a 90-degree turn because his other hand was busy with a cell phone," ANSA quoted the Italian report as saying.
On a cell phone? I thought that only happened in America where an idiot paying more attention to his phone than driving caused an accident. That is what this incident was. It was an accident. It was an accident waiting to happen at the ineptitude of the driver and the intel operative that lost his life. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
"The speed does not seem relevant insofar as there were no warning signals," the report said, adding that the driver insisted that "at the moment when fire opened, the car was traveling at approximately [25 to 35 mph]."
If that’s true then how did the car cross close to 100 yards in less than five seconds. It’s not possible. Not at a maximum speed of 35 mph it can’t, and I’d truly like to see a car do that. It was almost 100 yards between the car being spotted to where it was stopped with troops using lethal force; and that force was utilized when it crossed the 50 yard mark. It’s standard operating procedure (SOP) at a checkpoint that there is a point of no return where troops have the ability to utilize such force, and the car carrying Sgrena and Calipari crossed it.
The American troops had not issued warning signals and had "fired out of stress and inexperience," the report said. It also said evidence at the scene had been removed, making a full investigation more difficult.
This is false. Each statement made by the troops HIGHLIGHTED that point. They did try to warn the car. But in the time span allotted for the incident, with a driver screwing with a cell phone, is there any surprise in the actions of our troops. The driver is—seemingly and obviously ignoring the signals—and trying to operate a cell phone while driving a car going in excess of 60 mph. Duh. But it had little to do with the stress and inexperience of our troops.
The report was diametrically opposed in many respects to the outcome of an American investigation, which found that the car had been traveling at speeds of at least 50 mph and that the driver had ignored repeated warnings to stop.
It was, and he did.
The Italian report said it was "plausible" that the U.S. chain of command was not formally aware of the specific content of Mr. Calipari's mission, as the U.S. report had found.
We weren’t made aware of Calipari’s existence in Iraq until just prior to the incident. We didn’t know he was there, nor were we told why he was there. This is a FACT that Gen. Mario Marioli backs up. Marioli was the second in command of coalition forces in Iraq, and the senior Italian officer in the field. Calipari was required to speak with him, but ordered him to reveal nothing of his mission to other coalition forces.
But, the Italians said, it is "indisputably certain and confirmed" that the Americans were informed of the arrival of Mr. Calipari and another agent of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service, and that they were "carrying out an institutional activity," according to ANSA.
We were informed approximately 20 minutes prior to the incident occurring. What are we supposed to do? Marioli offered our commanders nothing, so were they just supposed to open every checkpoint, and let whatever wanted to come through just wander on past? I think not.
The report said the organization of the American checkpoint was "to say the least deficient," but "the Italian representatives on the commission ... have not found anything to suggest that the facts and matters that led to the tragedy were deliberate in any way."
I’ll give these bastards "deficient". How about this: They’re taking the word of a communist journalist, working for a communist newspaper, that hasn’t been able to keep her story straight from the start. And anyone who disputes that can follow the link below. It’s to my other half’s original site. Check her March archives. Sgrena was drum she liked to beat on back then.
http://journals.aol.com/prplsatnbunny/ConservativeThoughtsFromBunnysMi/
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home