Another Iraq thread: With friends like that...

[Giancarlo]

I also did read it in full.

I do not think the US military is at blame. I do however think you guys did not inform us at the proper levels. That's my opinion. I'm placing the blame on the Italian government.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
The manifesto? Should I take what they say as truth? Why?

May I note I'm not quoting "Manifesto"? May I note the article you quoted mentioned a different newspaper: "La Stampa"?

I invite you to check by yourself (you said you have italian parents, I hope they can help you with the italian translation) that "La Stampa" has not been against USA in its general, day-by-day article?

May I note that I'm not mixing the two points of italian army presence in Iraq (BTW USA needs them for political reasons, maybe not for military one, as for others allies) and the deadly incident we are speaking about?

May I note I suggested that we should wait a serius, two parts investigation, to decide our truth, while debating our first opinion?

I wrote my first post in this thread because I feel insulted from some posts (not necessary yours), and I feel the thread was left empty of a different source of information than USA press. Now I believe posters have read a different point of view, and have more opportunity to balance their opinion. That's enough for me.

[Giancarlo]

So only articles against the US are credible? I feel insulted by your posts thus far...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
From what I understand, the particular checkpoint was pretty deep in the checkpoint system due to its proximity to the Baghdad airport (supposedly an area better defended than the Green Zone), i.e. it's extremely unlikely that a suicide bomber could've gotten that far in the first place.

BIAP is a mixed civilian/military facility and I assure you there are routine attacks there though fewer then in the Green Zone. The reason is BIAP is outside the city while the Green Zone is downtown so it is easier to fire and run amoung all the civilians then it is to do the same from an open field with American helecopters flying over head. Still, it is a big area which includes several thousand civilian homes, Iraqi workers who work at BIAP, and with large numbers of civilians going to and from BIAP. Security remains a huge issue and isn't "extremely unlikely" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Odin
I must be the only Leftie on this site who does not spout crazy conspricacy theories. This was an accident; it's a war-zone, sh*t happens.

Yeah, before you take that trophy home, keep in mind most of us lefties haven't weighed in with an opinion one way or another. I'd rather wait for more information.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by One_Mean_Rabbit
Israel during intifada.
N. and S. Vietnam/Korea during respective wars. Face it, it was a silly diversion that also was wrong. It's not difficult.

Israel is/was not a war zone. Neither South Vietnam nor South Korea was democratic. Try again.

Originally posted by One_Mean_Rabbit
Also, while my response was 11 words, your one there was 18 and the very next one was 15 words. Are you seroius?! I mean really? You want me to add 4 or 7 more words, or are you just being hyper?

It was about your whole string of one line responses.

[Spiffor]

I find it really strange that a car with three agents from the secret services behave basically "like suicide bombers" according to what I've read in the thread. Unless all three were exhausted and didn't know what they were doing anymore, I don't see how they could be that wrong. Especially when you consider that they have passed several checkpoints without problems.

I also have a question for Oerdin (or any other military type here): When you're under fire for no immediately known reason, how do you recognize warning fire from actual shots aimed at you?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor


I also have a question for Oerdin (or any other military type here): When you're under fire for no immediately known reason, how do you recognize warning fire from actual shots aimed at you?

The warning ones aren't (supposedly) hitting you- or your car ?

[dannubis]

if some body started shooting in my general direction on a road that is known to be dangerous i know i would want to get the **** out of there...

perhaps not the right reaction but ineed a very human one.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by dannubis
if some body started shooting in my general direction on a road that is known to be dangerous i know i would want to get the **** out of there...

perhaps not the right reaction but ineed a very human one.

Obviously not, we know where it led.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The warning ones aren't (supposedly) hitting you- or your car ?

Well, but when you're in a moving car at night, I'd imagine that even shots aimed at you may miss

[dannubis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Obviously not, we know where it led.

but the point reamains :

i find it hard to believe they were approaching a clearly indicated check point when they were fired upon. especially at night.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Israel is/was not a war zone. Neither South Vietnam nor South Korea was democratic. Try again.



It was about your whole string of one line responses.

Really? Thousands of Palestinians dead and hundreds of Israelis? You have a funny definition of warzone.

Nice word switch. We were talking about soveriegn nations, not democracies. You don't have to be democratic to be sovereign. Give it up, it was a silly argument that is just wrong.

Whole string of one liners? Like your response I just quoted? Please give it a rest. You are arguing over inane things now.

Later!

[Whaleboy]

Fez's DL!! (or am I repeating myself? )

Really? Thousands of Palestinians dead and hundreds of Israelis? You have a funny definition of warzone.

If terrorism is a crime then Israel is not a war zone. If terrorism is an act of war, then it is. The definition relies on the assumption of, or to the contrary that terrorism is an act of war. That's a whole other debate, but imo the more consistent position is that it is a crime, not an AoW.

You are arguing over inane things now.

A guestimate of 60% of your posts here are arguing over inane things.

Later!

Indeed.

[One_Mean_Rabbit]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Fez's DL!! (or am I repeating myself? )

If terrorism is a crime then Israel is not a war zone. If terrorism is an act of war, then it is. The definition relies on the assumption of, or to the contrary that terrorism is an act of war. That's a whole other debate, but imo the more consistent position is that it is a crime, not an AoW.

A guestimate of 60% of your posts here are arguing over inane things.

Indeed.

You obviously aren't saying anything new...Again, you have a very funny definition of what a warzone means. It's funny how you again tried to dance away, but this time ignoring instead of switching words. You can be sovereign and in a warzone.

I am discussing the threads, you are arguing over vocabulary and ignoring points or changing subjects. There's people like you in every forum.

Take care.