DescentBB

I just read an update on the Giuliana Sgrena story:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... fer=europe

And I'm feeling conservative today, so here are my initial thoughts:

- What's a 57 year old female reporter doing in Iraq anyway?

- If the US wanted her dead, she'd be dead.

- If her captors made a point about warning her that the US wanted her dead, isn't it possible that they arranged for her convoy to be fired on?

- It's interesting that Italy may have paid a ransom for her. I'm not a big fan of negotiating with terrorists.

Things are still very confused and conflicting right now. We need an investigation and more facts, not reflexive finger-pointing.

I would give her some credence except for the fact she is a communist and works for the Italian communist newspaper il Manifesto. Does anyone think she would slant the story in any other way?

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to plain old stupidity.

Unless, of course, you're referring to a conservative.

Stryker wrote:Unless, of course, you're referring to a conservative.

How plebian.

I'll be interested to hear the outcome of any investigation. But can anybody give me any kind of reasonable explanation as to why the US would have wanted this left-wing reporter ex-hostage dead? Makes more sense that the terrorists who kidnapped might have tried to manipulate it in order to cause an international incident and thereby achieve their original aim; of getting the Italians to leave. Like Genghis said.

And she said her captors were "very religious"? Bull-puckey. Their behavior proves they are using religion as a cover for their own personal hates and failures.

If you drive toward a checkpoint in a war zone and ignore obvious signals to stop, well, what happens next should come as no surprise.

Something's not right here. The same story from The Turkish Press states: "They were 700 meters (yards) from the airport, which means that they had passed all checkpoints."

You'd really think the US would have a checkpoint free buffer of 700 metres around an airport?

had you read the story (and you proved you did not) you would see I quoted part of it verbatim.

I've read the story.

Here's another quote:

"The driver twice called the embassy and in Italy that we were heading towards the airport that I knew was heavily patrolled by U.S. troops."

My statement still stands.

AP Slams Military.
"Ambushed."
300 to 400 shots?
Nearly all 400 missed?
Not even at a checkpoint?

Channeling Eason Jordan.

As Skyalmian's links demonstrate, the story is changing pretty fast here.

What are the chances the US government would have tried to take her out, yet failed?

Now, what are the chances that her driver would've done something stupid that resulted in the car being shot at?

It seems pretty clear to me which is more likely...

Something I dug up while looking around for informatin on the US checkpoints in Iraq:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0307/p01s04-woiq.html


And I wonder how challenging it would be to hit a car moving at 50mph with a tank...

It's easy to hit a car moving 50 mph with a tank.

[quote="Armor Geddon"]What people donâ??t realize about the tank is that the computer in the fire control system calculates a ballistic solution for each round it fires. The computer gets a range from the laser range finder. Windage data is taken from the crosswind sensor on the back of the turret. Ammo temperature, air temperature, and barometric pressure are all inputted into the computer in the gunnerâ??s station. And finally, as the gunner is tracking a target on the move, the computer calculates and automatically induces lead. So even if you have the red dot on center of mass as the target is moving laterally, the gun will lead the target. To top it ALL off, the stability system keeps your eye on the ball while the tank is running amuck. And by â??eye,â?

Ergh.
She was warned?
Bits of an Giuliana Sgrena BBC interview.

Sky, you do realize that littlegreenfootballs.com is heavily biased towards the right?

Ferno, that's the way people try to spin it... it's a heavily pro-Israel, anti-Islamikaze site, which in a lot of people's eyes makes it "right wing". The site owner has definitely shifted to the right after 9/11, mostly in response to the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. But it's not exactly "right wing" so much as "anti-idiot", and on issues relating to Israel and Islam, the left has some pretty pro-idiot positions. Charles Johnson is still pretty left on a lot of issues. (I dare you to cut through the spin you've heard about LGF, and go back to the posts from 9/11 and immediately following to see where the site owner is coming from.)

In any case, that isn't particularly relevant -- attacking the messenger will get you nowhere here, and you should know that. Regardless of how biased LGF might be, the links it provides to other news sources -- including Sgrena's own writings and interviews -- can't be dismissed so easily.

To think that she was "targeted" is preposterous.

it was an observation Lothar.

But anyways, My guess (as educated as can be given the circumstances) is everyone just panicked and the sh!t hit the fan.

Ferno wrote:Sky, you do realize that littlegreenfootballs.com is heavily biased towards the right?

...I was wondering who would be the first to bring it up.
Of course I know. At least he's up front about it.
Lothar said the rest.

---

More from the anti-idiot site (which just links to the MSM again): Sgrena's truth.

If the US military had targeted her, she would either have to be alone wearing a desert-camo uniform with near-perfect stealth skills, or would have to be rolling in at the head of half a nation's army in order to have a prayer of a chance at surviving. The US military hasn't spent billions of dollars learning how to miss.

If the checkpoint saw her and had targeted her, they would have called in an airstrike had they most certainly wanted her dead. If they had called an airstrike, she would be a pancake for a desert lizard family by now.

Stryker wrote:The US military hasn't spent billions of dollars learning how to miss.

Not that I disagree with you on your central theme, but the Chinese may take umbrage with this one particular point of yours.

You reckon that was a mistake Ded???

If the US army wanted her dead, it wouldn't be all over her with vehicles and such. Two people, one spotter, one gunner, one bullet and no mess.

Flabby Chick wrote:You reckon that was a mistake Ded???

Flattening their Embasey? Yah, I reckon it was

Dedman wrote: Embasey?

That be "Embassy". Word nazi rides on.

One big question remains.. Where was Sgrena in relation to the checkpoint?


Sky, I wouldn't mind that site if it didn't keep throwing out names like 'communist' and 'stalinist' in it's articles (read: opinions).


Just as a goof I looked up the word 'canada' on that site. I generally don't think some of their pieces are very truthful, or even very even-handed. Such as this quote here: "Canadaâ??s newspapers and media, with the exception of the National Post, are almost universally biased against Israel in a way that often verges on antisemitism". I have not seen any anti-semitism at all from any media outlet here, and I usually can pick it out without too much trouble. But anyways...


Stryker, they wouldn't have bothered with an airstrike when they have a tank that could easily taken out that car.

Ferno wrote:One big question remains.. Where was Sgrena in relation to the checkpoint?

I don't know.

What I do know is that she herself wrote about almost losing control of the car during the drive. Doesn't sound like safe driving to me... (by the way, read the rest of that article too.)

I wouldn't mind that site if it didn't keep throwing out names like 'communist' and 'stalinist' in it's articles (read: opinions).

You mean like how it keeps saying she worked for a communist newspaper? Like this?

somebody wrote:In an article published Sunday in her communist newspaper, Il Manifesto, Sgrena described a "rain of fire and bullets" in the incident.

Oh wait, that wasn't LGF that said that, it was CNN.

same idea applies.