That’s Gotta Suck

Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, earlier reported released in Iraq, was wounded when US troops fired on the convoy transporting her, her newspaper said.

Freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was wounded when US troops opened fire on a convoy carrying her to safety, and an Italian mediator who help negotiate her release was killed, her newspaper Il Manifesto said on Friday.

Story here

16 replies on “That’s Gotta Suck”

It will be interesting to hear why they fired at the convoy. Imagine…an Italian Secret Service employee and a journalist who was interviewing refugees after the US assault on Falluja. Maybe they were making sure the truth about Falluja didn’t get out. I wonder if Ms. Sgrena will succumb to her injuries. This will be an interesting story for the next few days….

The drove right at a checkpoint and failed to slow down. According to the troops at the scene they also ignored a couple warning shots. They were probably not aware of how jumpy the checkpoint guys get. From talking to people that have been to Iraq this is exactly how they describe a suicide attack, speeding car that fails to slow down, coming right at a checkpoint or convoy.

Do you really believe the US troops used Mustard Gas? No reporters noticed that everybody was wearing gas masks? This wacko also says that we nuked Falluja. Nobody noticed that either.

Yeah, I think it was an accident rather than intentional: stuff happens in a war zone where people are nervous. My point was just that it has to suck, being a prisoner of the Iraqi insurgents (which presumably means you wonder all day every day when the bheading’s coming), getting released and then getting shot by your allies… And the poor old mediator who died had just had a major success, getting a countrywoman released…

Well, now she is talking to the Italian government. She says that it was not a checkpoint. But apparently it was. I wonder if it was a checkpoint they were not awarte of in some way? Also she keeps saying that she was not mistreated but her kidnappers, other than the kidnapping part I guess.

Yeah, those are all reports on the use of napalm, which is A) not a gas and B) not a WMD. US Forces use napalm (well they call it a firebomb now), and unlike many of the reports you linked to it isn’t just the US that approves of its use. The document these reports refer to is officially called Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (with Protocols I, II and III)
Geneva, 10 October 1980

Specifically Protocol III refers to the use of incendiary weapons. Among the countries that refused to sign this were,

Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

For some reason most of the Carribean nations refused to sign as well. The US did sign it but developed something called a Mark 77 Firebomb which gets around the restrictions. It functions just like napaln. Here is where the US Dept of Defense really screwed up, when asked if they used napalm (which is still whats the Marines on the ground call it) the DoD said they do not. Nobody at first asked if they used firebombs in Iraq. When they did the DoD acted surprised that anybody would confuse the two! Also many of the stories refer to a “media blackout” about the use of these weapons. There is a story that ran in August 2003 reporting that on the first day of the ground campaign CNN and Austrailian reporters saw these weapons used and reported on it.

Also many of the reports center around the civilian deaths in Falluja, remember that that offensive was announced weeks before it started. Civilians were asked to leave the city, they just had to come out unarmed. You really need to do your own research into these sources. Many of these reports are biased or factually in error and in an issue this emotionally charged that is to be expected.

I do hope it was intentional also. Sorry Jason but I have an extreme mistrust of your government. If some of the reasons that the US is even in Iraq was true then maybe I would have a different view. But your government lied and the countries who didn’t fall for the lies were labeled as against the US. So there is a lot of mistrust from around the world now know that there was no WMD’s. What I am getting at is there is some evidence that “maybe” some of those weapons the Iraqi minister said were used, were actually used. Who do we believe. The ones who are saying there is evidence, or the ones who are accused who aren’t saying anything?

What evidence? You did notice that he never actually presented any. No reporters American or otherwise who have been reporting from Falluja the whole time have ever indicated anything like this. There is a reason the mainstrean international media has ignored this guy.

I think it is generally acknowledged that the leaders, especially Bush, Rice,and Powell let themselves believe there were WMD in Iraq. It justified all they wanted to do and they sold the war on that basis. If they were lying intentionally they would have had to do so that entire time knowing that when it was found there ware no weapons in Iraq they would be forced to explain their decision. If they were lying they would have known the world would eventually find out about it. If they were lying they would have put WMD in Iraq themselves to make sure it was found. They didn’t do that. They have simply admitted that they were wrong (well Bush never admits to anything but Powell has said that they went to war on the basis of bad information, he resigned in part because of it)

hmmm I wrote out a fairly long reply to this but it has refused to post. Sirdar I am going to email it to you since I took the time to write it. But just in brief, the reports you link to talk about the use of napalm, which is not a gas, nor is it a wmd.

Sorry, Jason and Sirdar Inc., the filter caught a couple of your posts, so I went and manually approved them this morning. Good to see the level of discussion here.

OK…we will try this again 🙁 I can’t remember everything I wrote but I think I can piece it all back together.

First of all lets look at the Protocol III.


Article 1


For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. “Incendiary weapon” rneans any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

Now Mark 77 may not be made exactly like the napalm of the 60’s but it does exactly the same thing. Therefor it is still in violation of Protocol III.

Now lets look at the file I downloaded on one of the links you sent me to. If you look at the file the US did NOT sign Protocol III, just like all the other countries you state didn’t. Would it be a fair assumption that the US is just a guilty of being an axis of evil in their eyes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.