The anger over this has been rising in me over the last 24 hours or so. Not at the USA like most people are complaining about but at the incompetent actions of the Italians and the insulting comments and actions from the Italian government.

First...

"journalist Giuliana Sgrena claimed American soldiers gave no warning before they opened fire and said Sunday she could not rule out that U.S. forces intentionally shot at the car carrying her to the Baghdad airport, wounding her and killing the Italian agent who had just won her freedom after a month in captivity".

Well 'scuse me but if I was poor old GI Joe wanting to get back home to his wife and kids in the USA and a car was speeding to the checkpoint then I would have ripped so many bullets into that car that no one would have survived. Has anyone in Italy being watching the reports from Iraq. Day after day suicide bombers have driven to check points to blow themselves up ...... What do they expect Gi Joe to do? Shout friend or frikken foe (in Italian of course)? Give me strength!

"The White House called the shooting a "horrific accident" and restated its promise to investigate fully."

Well they should start by investigating the IQ of the friken driver!


Second....


If the Italian government paid a ransom for her release (and it seems likely) Then the government should be bloody well arrested aiding and abetting in crime and thrown into jail. Seriously you should never EVER negotiate with terrorist scum. Every victim taken after this victory for the terrorists should be swapped with a member of belasconi's government if justice was to prevail.

The Italians are outraged by what happened? ...... they need to take a long hard look at themselves.

***The above quotes are from ***

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=556898

Paying the ransom for hostages are probably more common than governments wants us to know. It's not exactly something you go out in public with.

There are a couple of points missing from your post though Wellard.

1) She was actually warned by her Iraqi captors that the American's might try to stop her leaving

2) The other day I watched the frontline documentary (which you can find here where their reporter was embedded with US troops for one month.

The US troops at one point were asked to set up a roadblock. They set this up at the bottom of a sliproad (which had a big curve) leading onto a motorway/freeway.

A car turned off the freeway, one or two warning shots were fired, then the troops opened fire on the car.

There were several things I noticed about this -

a) The car wasn't even fully around the bend, and was so far away that it looked about 1cm in height on the screen, if that. I would estimate that it was several hundred metres away.

b) The warning shots were actually not that loud, and that was with the camera man standing right next to the troops. Its therefore quite possible that the car driver did not hear the shots given his distance.

c) Seeing as the car driver was still going round the bend, it is likely that he was looking straight ahead and therefore didn't even see the troops.

d) The first instinct when you hear a gunshot in somewhere like Iraq is to get the hell away from the area and drive faster.

To cut a long story short, I thought the troops opened fire on this car far far too quickly - the car hadn't even turned off the freeway for long enough to ascertain its speed, let along that it was speeding up as the troops claimed.

Its therefore not unreasonable at all that it was a case of trigger-happiness and poor roadblock procedures rather than driver error. This would certainly account for the rather large number of innocent deaths at roadblocks where American troops have opened fire.

It's also quite likely that the driver was from the Italian secret service and thus has a rather high IQ and is fairly well trained.


As for paying ransom money to hostages, consider it the price for Italian support in your little coalition. Berlusconi has put his neck out for Bush and has been severely weakened domestically - if he can prevent his citizens from being killed in a war that the majority of his country thinks is injust then of course he's going to pay! It's just political sense. Every government performs morally dubious acts - this hardly ranks amongst the most terrible.

[ 03-07-2005, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

A good article on the failings of checkpoint procedures can be found here

Some quotes..

You begin to see how the Iraqi's might find it difficult to know what the procedures are then...

Well, that's a good reason...

:rolleyes:

Nice to know that five miles an hour is enough to get you warning shots...

As most of these are reports are from Westerners, hopefully their version of events would carry more weight with ye sceptics than the 'terrorist' Iraqis ;)

Put these "poor old GI Joe's" on a pedestal if you want, call them national heroes if you want; whatever helps you to justify their presence in another country.

But at the same time, accept that they have been responsible for the deaths of many, many civilians.

Accept that the procedures for handling traffic are not that great, at the very least.

Therefore consider the possibility that the Italian's are quite right to be indignant about this.

Normal Iraqi's are equally indignant and it happens to them much much more often - but the US doesn't record civilian casualty figures, Western media rarely gives the incidents coverage and any disgruntled Iraqi's are marginalised as insurgents and thus their views are not taken seriously.

And just to put a human face on it, because its so easy to gloss over civilian deaths in Iraq: The kids left behind after their parents were killed in the incident described above. And of course, when they grow up and hate the US they'll be reported by US media as more 'terrorists' and the fact that they may have a valid reason for hating America will never be mentioned.

The situation is not as simple as you make out Wellard - American troops can, and do, make mistakes - this event may well turn out to have been one of them.


Many edits, sorry.

[ 03-07-2005, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

And just because I always end up arguing against the occupation of Iraq and would like to provide some balance, I should probably say that I actually agree with your sentiment Wellard about the ransom money.

I think its morally dubious, rewarding criminality and definitely not an example to follow.

Not every country has the same attitude as the US and UK though - to allow one of your countrymen to die through inaction requires a certain mindset within the electorate, one that apparently doesn't exist in Italy.

In my personal opinion though, there are far greater crimes being committed in Iraq at the moment so 'righteous anger' directed at the Italian government rings a bit false in my ears, hence my original comments on this.

Hmm...looking back that all seems a bit of a rant, but please don't take it personally Wellard. In the same way that you get angry over some of the issues, I seem to get progressively more angry as well whilst writing! At least it makes for lively debate [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-07-2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color=skyblue>I am really upset that this has occurred and I blame the US for their itchy trigger finger as much as I blame the driver of that truck for not expecting trouble and taking it more carefully...I think both countries can share blame. I mean...if we are occupying the place, then the Italians maybe should have checked with us to make a clear pathway. They could have asked for our help with an escort truck to get through the checkpoints safely. Sounds like a good idea to me, and I am not even getting paid to think! I am not a military man, so I do not know what was the right thing to do, but surely there could have been a better way.

By the way, my favorite cousin is over there now, and was sent to Germany for treatment when shrapnel from an exploding truck got him in the belly. His friend beside him took shit to the face and it blinded him. Now that he has recovered, they have sent him back into Iraq.

He is one year overdue to come home, and they say that he may come home soon. His dad is a high ranking Pentagon official, so he gets inside news. Until he gets released finally, I hope he don't let any more trucks get near him. </font>

:( Sorry to hear about that Larry, glad he's back on his feet now.

One year overdue?! Is that the normal state of affairs? I understood that troops are rotated?

I take your point about the Italians - I haven't found anything saying whether the embassy co-ordinated with the American troops or not. I dare say that will come out in the inquiry, but if they didn't let the American's know they were coming then they are fools and I agree with you 100%!

[ 03-07-2005, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Keep in mind, though, that many smaller nations have no capabilities whatsoever to rescue their citizens through a complex rescue mission and both the Iraqi forces and the Coalition forces have their hands full to offer much help. Sweden have at least one citizen held hostage by kidnappers but the government can't do much about it.

[ 03-07-2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

They're supposed to be rotated out, but due to shortages it doesn't always happen.

Good point Stratos...I never thought of that. I guess I assumed you pays your money and get the result!

I'm afraid I derailed this topic slightly onto checkpoints, so to get it back on track, would you support Sweden paying a ransom for this hostage assuming the recovery details could be sorted out?

Thanks for the reply Morgeraut, I didn't realise the army was so stretched that people were having to stay that long! At least everyone involved can hopefully find some comfort in the expanded NATO role for training Iraqi forces that was agreed last week - with luck that will ease the pressure on US soldiers a bit.

Just remember for anyone playing Armchair General out there. The check points are *extremely* hazardous. 300 - 400 meters may seem like a long way off, but there are some IEDs with a blast *radius* of more than 600 meters.

Jugde not the soldier with the "itchy" trigger finger unless you know what manning a check point in a combat zone is like.

And while this reporter (with an agenda) may have experienced this first hand, she only has one point of view of the events.

Just like the Marine accused of warcrimes for shooting a wounded inside a mosque, there just may be more to the story than the events of the moment.

Among some other bits, the IRR (inactive ready reserve) is going away, and those soon-to-be or former soldiers that aren't part of a national guard, reserve, or active duty military unit are being recalled to national guard, reserve, or active duty (I believe it's their choice which they join).

When one joins the military they sign up for an 8 year service obligation (I spent almost a year of that in school before I went to basic, and have been IRR since April of '03) but my obligation exists until August of this year.

Many soldiers have been recalled, everything from truck drivers that got out after Gulf War 1, to officers in their 60's.

One thing that may also be influencing keeping soldiers there past their normal cycle dates is the lessons learned from Vietnam, the demographic with the highest number of casualties was those with less than 1 year in country, (the draft was a 2 year service obligation at the time), and cycling through that many people, few of them were there long term, and thus inexperienced soldiers were training other slightly more inexperienced soldiers. Not saying it is the primary, or even one of the main reasons to keep soldiers overlong, but I doubt it's being overlooked (working here at the War College I can tell you they go over lessons learned from previous wars on a frequent basis in attempts to better the knowledge of leaders in the military in general, and not just in Iraq)

Guilty as charged [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] . And the point you make is well-taken.

Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but 600 metres! That's almost 2/3 of a kilometre! It seems more on the scale of a small nuclear device than conventional explosives...

[ 03-07-2005, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Possibly, yes. The hostage, a politician running for the Iraqi Christian Democratic party, has been a hostage since January 28. He's probably in the hands of some group who though they could make a quick buck kidnapping Westerners, and not in the hands of people like al-Zarqawi.

Had Sweden had personnel on the ground capable of a hostage rescue job, I might have a different opinion, but as it is now they should either pay or stall them kidnappers long enough for the Iraqi law enforcement to bring them in. Sweden can't do much about the kidnappers and they will most likely continue to
kidnap Westerners even if you don't pay them.

The sad fact of life Stratos is that many groups (most not actually affiliated with active terrorist groups) conduct frequent kidnappings, and then sell the prisoners, either to terrorists, or ransom them back to their governments, or sometimes the terrorists they are sold to ransom them (hoping for a larger return on their investment, or for whatever demands they may have, as we've all seen and heard on the news).

That’s an interesting article Shamrock, thankyou. Yes of course the USA troops can, will, do and have made mistakes and this incident I'm sure is just one of many. But can we in all honesty condemn the actual foot soldier like the Italians are doing? Stuff like this happens, its war and for the Italians to carry on like raw prawns is two faced when they are actively rewarding the problem by paying ransoms.

It's also quite likely that the driver was from the Italian secret service and thus has a rather high IQ and is fairly well trained.</font>[/QUOTE]What about planning to contact the American forces? With the lockdown of the airport and other areas the Italians would have had to involve the US at some point to fly her out so keeping things 100% quite was never going to be an option.
The piss poor planning / IQ of some people involved deserves question.


I’ve seen first hand the devastation that an IRA bomb (Manchester) can do. That would not be an unusual figure Nightstalker mentioned but I admit I really know jack about such things. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

I'm against the occupation of Iraq too. No I do not take it personally shamrock :D

My anger was against the 'moral outrage' that I call cynical and two faced, displayed by the Italians. They support the USA in the war and occupation, then they are old enough to know that innocents get killed, things go wrong, it is after all a war! Then to get onto a high horse and accuse the USA of incompetence and suggest darker motives is IMO a ruse to cover up there poor planning and the fact that they talked and gave money to the terrorist scum.

[ 03-07-2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

Not much of an update I'll admit, and again not very conclusive, but if they never tried to coordinate with US military then it is a bit more understandable, but no less unfortunate.

<font color=plum>So the Iraqi captors are the "good guys" by warning her??? How would the Americans even KNOW she was in the car to begin with???

I don't mean to bust your chops, <font color=lime>shamrock</font>, and you've toned down your earlier commentary, but I just had to comment on this. The Iraqi captors are pre-eminently warning that the Americans may try to stop her from leaving and we're supposed to take this to heart? What ELSE would anybody EXPECT the Iraqi captors to say?? "Oh, you should have no problems with the Americans. They may be infidels, but they aren't really bad guys???" PUH-LEASE!!!!

<font color=plum>Americans may not like negotiating with terrorists, but we sure as HALE aren't going to shoot at allies or their citizens just because we don't like something they did. Good Grief!!! This woman puts Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" to freakin' shame. It is obvious she has an anti-American agenda and her comments support that assumption.

I saw an update on this situation this morning. According to the general giving the press conference, the Italians NEVER told the U.S. forces that one of their citizens was being rescued from kidnappers and would be coming through their checkpoints. ALL they had to do was let the American troop leaders know what was going on. Even if they didn't want our help, it was just ignorant to conduct such an operation in an occupied territory without telling the occupying forces about it beforehand...ESPECIALLY when the you are supposedly ALLIES with the occupying forces. :rolleyes:

Again, <font color=lime>shamrock</font>, my own rant is not aimed at you personally, but at the "spin" the Italians are putting on it.</font>

Isn't it amazing that in the modern day, with sophisticated communications devices able to put the soldier on the ground on the phone with his CO while he is conducting a firefight -- that it is communications errors that are 90% of the blue-on-blue kills?

In other words, we have all the means to communicate, but it is *people* who stonewall communications *on their own side* and *amongst allies* that really are the root cause of the problem.

<font color=plum>So the Iraqi captors are the "good guys" by warning her??? How would the Americans even KNOW she was in the car to begin with???

I don't mean to bust your chops, <font color=lime>shamrock</font>, and you've toned down your earlier commentary, but I just had to comment on this. The Iraqi captors are pre-eminently warning that the Americans may try to stop her from leaving and we're supposed to take this to heart? What ELSE would anybody EXPECT the Iraqi captors to say?? "Oh, you should have no problems with the Americans. They may be infidels, but they aren't really bad guys???" PUH-LEASE!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]No worries Cerek, the more I re-read what I wrote the more I see I need a good slapping down for it!

To respond:

1) Not all hostage-takers are necessarily foaming-at-the-mouth terrorists. In particular, these guys apparently treated her "very well". As well as a quick buck (if the reports are true) they may have wanted to make a political point in a relatively (for Iraq!) non-violent way. It's not impossible that they had no hard feelings about her personally, respected the fact she'd learned their language etc and her role about reporting in Iraq and therefore were genuinely concerned.I obviously give the 'conspiracy theories' short shrift but in the Middle-East there are countless 'bogeymen' stories about Western countries so its possible they may have believed it.

2) If all they were interested in was the money, then there was no need for the warning at all - rather than having to say "the american's are alright really" its more likely that they simply wouldnt have bothered saying anything.

<font color=plum>Americans may not like negotiating with terrorists, but we sure as HALE aren't going to shoot at allies or their citizens just because we don't like something they did. Good Grief!!! This woman puts Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" to freakin' shame. It is obvious she has an anti-American agenda and her comments support that assumption. </font></font>[/QUOTE]I'm in full agreement here - I don't hold much credibility for most conspiracy theories, this one included.

It's probably worth pointing out that the account of the remaining security agent also disagrees with that of the US soldiers though. I admit there might be an incentive to agree with the hostage in this case, but he isn't explicitly agenda drive like she is.

I agree completely. It will be interesting to see whether the Italians grudgingly admit that this is the case.

I would point out though, that in an occupied country where 'winning hearts and minds' is a desirable goal, it shouldn't be necessary to give advanced notice of your travel (something which Iraqi's aren't able to do) to avoid being shot ;)

I wouldn't really call your post a rant Cerek, and unlike mine, you haven't lost your objectivity in doing so!

[ 03-09-2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Just an update to the saga: Mr Berlusconi has said that the car stopped after the warning light and was then fired upon by the American troops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4333839.stm

I presume this has come from the driver who I understand survived the attack.


Update:

Interesting.

[ 03-09-2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

This is quite related as well actually, I just saw The Times lying open as I went to the computer room with the headline
Apparently troops didn't recognise the Union Jack so US commanders have asked the British to supply them with vehicles, men and flags to teach soldiers what we look like.

The British already provide a detailed presentation for all incoming US troops apparently describing vehicles, uniform etc.

But the risk of being shot at by American troops is clearly pretty high - apparently the British army has the following procedure for approaching convoys

A British officer in Basra is quoted as saying

Seen in light of these experiences, and the fact the British troops feel the need to have a procedure for them, indicate that the car being fired upon whilst stopped is not outside the realms of possibility.

[ 03-09-2005, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

just realised I hadn't linked to my article.

link to the article I quoted above

[ 03-09-2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">True, but why does the US military not tell the public how to respond to approaching a checkpoint. Personally I believe they don't even have a standard checkpoint procedure to be followed thus all the secrecy, there is nothing to tell and its embarrassing. If they did they could tell the public how to behave upon approaching. My suggestion for the people is go to work, stay home, go get supplies but avoid checkpoints at all cost even if it cost you your job, as they are really death points not check points.

What does stop that car mean? Somehow having 50 troops open fire on the vehicle does not sound right, effective but a waste of bullets, No. The Italians have a right to be upset, and I don't want to be to harsh on US troops either as they are soldiers not police, although having a few trained in the field to deal with the public in a civilized way might be a good thing.

I know if you stuck me behind the wheel of a car in Iraq and told me to drive to the American checkpoint I would not go. I would ask, is there a British one nearby. Sure I would be still be soiling my pants but at least I would feel I would have a good chance of getting through.</font>

[ 03-11-2005, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Pritchke, you are so full of ignorance and media hyped drivel about this topic that I have no idea how to how to address you.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">How so?? My main points are:

1. The US military should inform the public how to approach checkpoints for the public good not doing so endangers the public. Then don't need to release procedures to tell people how to approach safely. This is just a failure to communicate. We can make the excuse that suicide bombers would do the same thing but then maybe they should stop, get out of there car a ways back from checkpoints, walk up to the checkpoint with a wave signal, have a couple soldiers inspect, then allow them back in there car to proceed if it all checks out. It isn't rocket science, innocents are being killed as a result of fear from suicide bombers.
2. Soldiers are not police, so we should not crap on them for not acting like police and we should not expect them to behave as such. If there was a line of communication open with the public that allowed both soldiers and citizens to behave a certain way than the soldiers would not kill so many citizens. This is not the soldiers fault but the higher ups that don't inform the public how to approach.
3. People who lose loved ones as a result of the failure to communicate have the right to be pissed.

Your right the rest of my post was hog wash and effect but I still would not approach a US checkpoint. Just as they fear the suicide bombers I truly fear they would shoot me and ask questions later.

If you feel that I speak out of ignorance than enlighten me, I am only going by all I have read above. Obviously there is a problem at checkpoints that needs to be addressed, I don't know if it is or isn't being addressed. The ignorance will persist if you say nothing.

From my prespective all lives are of equal value if they are not law breakers and killers out to do harm. Mind you the biggest ignorance of all is to have a problem, not be aware of a problem, or do nothing to prevent the problem from occuring again. </font>

[ 03-11-2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Another thing this statement keeps popping up "it is after all a war!" confuses me.

Personally I thought the war was over and we are now rebuilding at least that is what I thought Bush said. Now we are just dealing with a few very dangerous fanatics who need to wiped out as they are not doing any good to anyone. This current situation seems more like a severe policing job than a war. What is a war exactly? I thought the Koran War was a war yet by many it is described as a minor conflict and not recognized as a war which to me is a load of hog wash. What is war exactly?
</font>

[ 03-11-2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Iraq isn't supposed to be a war, but it is. It's the kind of war that the American army isn't trained to fight, which is why its not referred to as a war. You can't lose if you're not in a war - much better for propoganda purposes.

Koran war = Korean war? Anyone who describes that as a minor conflict is simply being unrealistic - there were some seriously nasty battles over there with some very high casualty figures, around 2 million soldiers lost their lives if memory serves.

History has a funny way of forgetting huge and terrible conflicts - everyone knows about the 1st Gulf War but how many know of the Iran-Iraq war just a few years before - that was a truly horrible and bloody conflict which dwarfed any other in that period.

If you're looking for some kind of intellectual justification for calling the Korean war a war, then it was the first place that the US put its doctrine of global containment into practice following the recommendations made in NSC-68.

Edit: Aaah, I see your confusion, it wasn't called a war in America apparently but 'police action'. [ 03-11-2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Pritchke does make a good point in asking is there a standard practice for approaching check points? If so what is it?

Now as a plain ol' ignorant civilian I would suggest that stopping the car, flashing the headlights and waiting for instructions from the troops at the check point would be a guess...but just that a guess.

Then again - if you make it public knowledge how to best approach a checkpoint, isn't that knowledge that a celver suicide bomber could leverage off of. As far as I can see this is a damed if you do and damned if you don't thing.

The civilian population does know how to handle check points. While things are extremely dangerous out amoung the population, the locals go their way and we go ours.

Check points are set up randomly to cut the insurgancy activity. They are set by both coalition forces and Iraqi Army/Iraqi Police.

The check points are dangerous places for the soldiers, not the normal civilians. The become dangerous to civilians when ambushes are set against the check points, as the insurgency does not care about the local civilian populas.

To charactorize the American or other Coalition forces as untrained to deal with this conflict is a myth being spread by the media. Actually, suprisingly enough, the NY Times has been publishing good press about the forces on the ground lately.

All of you Armchair Generals out there are having you antiwar/antiAmerican preconceptions reenforced by mostly negative (and misconstued) press. There are far more numerous positive actions taking place over here.

Davros ..... thanks for recognizing one of the delicate intracies.

<font color=skyblue>Let's leave posts like this out of the conversation, please.</font>

Since "ignorance" is merely a state of being uninformed, and neither an attack nor insult, I make no apologies.

Pritcke, due to the nature of my situation there is only so much detail I may give. Concerning checkpoints, I've said pretty much it. The locals do know the deal.

As for pointed remarks. I am in a position that leaves me with little time nor patience for extended hyperbole. Despite all the sniping that goes on in the world press, US troops are not the "Bad Guys".

For those wondering "what war is" ... it's simple. When you have opposing groups of people ready to kill each other, those groups are at war. Any other definition is just literary fluffery.

The actual von Klaussian definition would be "warfare is the extension of politics through other means."

So people aren't being killed/maimed/wounded by the hundreds each month, the cost of the war is not in the 100s of billions and growing, and the coalition has a clear exit strategy? Next will you be telling that WOMDs, as portayed before the war, have finally been found!

It's a manner of opinion, not knowledge or know-how, what sort of factual based "positive actions" balances out the factual based "negatives".

Your attempt to paint the antiwar folks with a broad brush of ignorance and anti-Americanism is flawed and failed.

edit-typos (thanks Sir D. [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[ 03-12-2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Of course there's an exit strategy! It's right here.

As for ignorance, it is the truth. Through no fault of anyone here for your information is only as good as your source, as only a small handfull of people on this board has any actuall experience.

Will you accept that schools are now available to people that had no access to it before? Or that water and power is being extended to places that were denied those resources under Saddam's Reign? These are only some examples. Soldiers risking their lives to protect Iraqi locals?

And for clarifiation the war against Iraq ended. The Global War on Terrorism continues, with Iraq being one battlfield. ;)

Night Stalker I understand that while you are on duty in Iraq that posting detailed information can be hard or even undesirable but if you can please let us know what the procedures are for locals to approach checkpoints and how the information is advertised to the people of Iraq.

Shine some light on this poor boys ignorance [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Keep safe mate :D

Yeah, hope you have a nice quiet period until you leave Night Stalker!

And that link was great by the way!

<font color=plum>Forgive me for playing Armchair General myself - but just HOW HARD is it for the average person to figure out how to approach a checkpoint???

The Iraqi citizens know that the American troops are under daily attacks and that they will be suspicious of ANY unusual activity. So you slow your car to a CRAWL if you have to and keep your hands in sight at all times. You approach under extreme caution and allow the TROOPS to make the first move.

Despite what the media is trying to present, I find it VERY hard to believe the troops will simply open fire on you for no reason if you do everything you can to show you're not a threat.

As somebody already said, this ISN'T rocket science - it is common sense.</font>

The rules are simple. Driving toward the checkpoint heralds a threat, and will get you fired upon. Driving away from a check point means you have something to hide, and will get you fired upon.

When you see a check point, please simply sit still and piss yourself. If you see the US soldiers gesturing for you to move forward or go back, see the rules posted above.

And piss yourself some more, you terrorist jerk. You deserve what you get, anyway.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">No offense taken, no apologies necessary. I suspected the use of the word but wasn't sure of the tone it was being used in so just took it as meaning lack of knowledge on the subject and not as an intended insult.</font>

[ 03-14-2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]