Why would US shoot released Italian hostage?

The current furore over the shooting of the Italian 'agent' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4328551.stm really is bizarre.

None of it makes any sense, as the US have nothing to gain by her death (or that of the agent(s) that secured her release) and everything to lose.

I am in no doubt that the Italian government is handing over ransom money to get their hostages released, and that is a very difficult issue. Since they're bound to be significant sums, I'm sure that they could fuel the insurgency (although where these people are going to spend any of that money...) and that it's in direct opposition to the 'no negotiation' approach that has been developed over the years.

But despite all of that, I still can't see that it provides enough 'motive'.

And in any case, by then it was too late for it to change anything.

So, could there be an ulterior motive on the part of the Italians to make this allegation? Maybe they haven't been as upfront about their activities as they say - in which case throwing allegations like that around is bound to muddy the waters sufficiently to avoid the truth to be discovered.
And since so many people are only too ready to think the worst of the Americans, they could hardly go wrong, could they?

[STONEISLAND]

I think its down to the rules 'we do not negotiate with terrorist'

The Ialians did.

[punky]

Even if the Italians did negoiate with terrorists, why would the US try and kill her deliberatel, in spite?

I read a BBC report about it the other day. She truely is away with the fairies. What she was saying wasn't even sane, let alone logical. Then you find out she works for a far-left-wing paper and see her possible motivation.

Lets look at the facts though... A car was speeding to a US armed checkpoint. It ignored vocal requests to stop. It then ignored hand signals to stop. It then ignored warning shots to stop. Considering most cars that do that have a habit of blowing themselves up, killing US soldiers, the next step would be to neutralise the threat.

God knows why the car didn't just stop like it was supposed to.

[Paul K]

Erm they were travelling at speed directly towards a road blocked guarded by armed personel whose role was to make sure no vehicle breached the checkpoint without first stopping to be checked.
The car refused to stop or acknowledge the request to stop, the soldiers fired warning shots, the car continued, the soldiers fired upon the car to stop it.

[Derek]

Or for the Black Helicoptor brigade she had information about the US using banned weapons in Fallujah?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_422083.htm

Personally I think the American soldiers were just trigger happy and saw a car coming towards them which didn't stop immediately and opened up on it. It wouldn't be the 1st time they have jumped the gun and started shooting before all the warning options are exhausted.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Or for the Black Helicoptor brigade she had information about the US using banned weapons in Fallujah?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_422083.htm

Highly dubious accusation. Considering the coverage we had of that assault, I think we'd have known by now.
And when they start claiming the use of napalm/nuclear weapons it really starts sounding like they had magic mushrooms before they spoke.

But as I said before, where America is concerned some people will (choose to) believe anything.

Originally Posted by dezzo

Personally I think the American soldiers were just trigger happy and saw a car coming towards them which didn't stop immediately and opened up on it. It wouldn't be the 1st time they have jumped the gun and started shooting before all the warning options are exhausted.

If every time a car came racing at you it ended up blowing up and killing people I think you'd develop a rather prejudicial disposition towards speeding cars.

I'm not sure if I was there I could always remember to go through the 'checklist' of warnings - one warning too many might cost you your life!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Paul

Erm they were travelling at speed directly towards a road blocked guarded by armed personel whose role was to make sure no vehicle breached the checkpoint without first stopping to be checked.
The car refused to stop or acknowledge the request to stop, the soldiers fired warning shots, the car continued, the soldiers fired upon the car to stop it.

Just what I was going to write

The American military is renouned for being for being extremely trigger happy. I saw what they where like during Gulf One. On more than one occasion Apache helocopters hit American military convoys with Hellfire Missiles and 30mm HE chaingun fire. They really are a bunch of cowboys, and may soldiers from many countries say the same.

A mate of mine who is still in the Army, told me that when his unit was deployed to Iraq, they where issued Starstreak Misslies. These wherent to defend against Iraqi military plains, but self defence incase the US Airforce A10 pilots decided to ''expend live ordenance'' on friendly forces. Scary or what ?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Paul

Erm they were travelling at speed directly towards a road blocked guarded by armed personel whose role was to make sure no vehicle breached the checkpoint without first stopping to be checked.
The car refused to stop or acknowledge the request to stop, the soldiers fired warning shots, the car continued, the soldiers fired upon the car to stop it.

... says the US Military.



The Italian foreign minister tells a different story. Not speeding, well lit, shot at without warning.



If the Italian version of events is true, it would hardly be the first time that trigger happy soldiers have - without warning - shot the hell out of a car & its occupants at a checkpoint in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Matt D

... says the US Military.



The Italian foreign minister tells a different story. Not speeding, well lit, shot at without warning.



If the Italian version of events is true, it would hardly be the first time that trigger happy soldiers have - without warning - shot the hell out of a car & its occupants at a checkpoint in Iraq.

Apparently the US 3rd Infantry Division (who where responsible for this shooting) have something of a history of ''malloting'' cars at checkpoints.

I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle with the Americans feeling very vunerable to speeding cars.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Apparently the US 3rd Infantry Division (who where responsible for this shooting) have something of a history of ''malloting'' cars at checkpoints.

Yep, I've just read something mentioning that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...432656,00.html

However the Third Infantry Division, whose troops include those that fired on the Italians' car last Friday, came under investigation in April last year for opening fire on carloads of Iraqi women and children at checkpoints, according to US army documents obtained by the Guardian.

"The order was given to shoot anything that moves, but it wasn't meant to be taken literally," one soldier told the US army investigator.

One soldier described shooting women and children in cars "if they didn't respond to the signs, the presence of troops or warning shots".

Human rights organisations have lodged repeated complaints against US forces in Iraq, saying that they have failed to protect civilians at checkpoints, and that the rules of engagement are too lax.

Originally Posted by Matt D

If the Italian version of events is true, it would hardly be the first time that trigger happy soldiers have - without warning - shot the hell out of a car & its occupants at a checkpoint in Iraq.

Just because they are trigger-happy does not mean they were targetting the Italian journalist or her escort.

Which is what the accusation is.

[Tezcatlipoca]

True. Although I never said they targetted them. Just that they could have been trigger happy - a different accusation, & one which there is precedent for. I was also replying to Paul & pointing out that the Italian government does not agree with the US military's version of events.

Originally Posted by Matt D

True. Although I never said they targetted them. Just that they could have been trigger happy - a different accusation, & one which there is precedent for. I was also replying to Paul & pointing out that the Italian government does not agree with the US military's version of events.

Sorry - not meant as a criticism of your comment, since I agree that Americans do seem to have a rather gung-ho approach.

My main argument here is that just because they're arrogant cowboys doesn't mean that we have to let the Italians get away with scurrilous accusations either.

It's just that as the case builds up to show that the Americans can't control their trigger finger, it almost becomes assumed that the Italian accusation must be true.