Italian journalist rescue disaster

[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:

The prime minister said the US military had authorised the Italian journey to the airport.

Interesting.

An agent travelling in the car with Mr Calipari had given an account of events which conflicted with the version given by the US military, he added. "A light was flashed at the vehicle from 10m away," Mr Berlusconi said. "The driver at this point stopped the car immediately and at the same time there was gunfire for about 10 or 15 seconds. "A few shots reached the vehicle and another one reached and killed Mr Calipari," he said. "This reconstruction of events has been made according to what has been witnessed by another agent who was with Mr Calipari and does not coincide totally with what has been communicated so far by the US authorities." 'Painful' truth The US says the vehicle carrying Ms Sgrena to the airport was "travelling at high speeds" and "refused to stop at a checkpoint". Soldiers fired at the engine when the driver failed to stop after several warnings, military officials said. Mr Berlusconi said he had spoken to US President George W Bush, who had promised to co-operate in finding out who was responsible. He said the idea that Mr Calipari had been killed by friendly fire was "painful" but added he was certain the US "has no intention of evading the truth". "I'm sure that in a very short time every aspect of this will be clarified," he said.

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

[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

US troops get training to avoid friendly-fire attacks on British

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

They are ordered to slow down to a snail's pace as they pull alongside a convoy. They are told to display the Union Jack and shout that they are British

A British officer in Basra is quoted as saying

The American's can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack.

If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction

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 ]

[Morgeruat]

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 ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.

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

[Night Stalker]

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.

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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.

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.

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

[pritchke]

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?


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

[shamrock_uk]

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'.

In the United States, the conflict was termed a police action (as the Korean Conflict) under the aegis of the United Nations rather than a war, largely in order to remove the necessity of a Congressional declaration of war.

[ 03-11-2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[wellard]

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.

[Davros]

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.