March 08, 2005

Italian "Reporter" Idiocy

Even the Italians are questioning the views expressed by that paragon of journalistic virtue(/sarcasm 0ff),Giuliana Sgrena.

It is Ms. Sgrena's contention that the US government ordered the execution of Ms. Sgrena and her compatriots after she had taken her leave of her insurgent Islamofacist kidnappers.

There at least two major problems with Ms Sgena's contentions:
First, the Italians had kept the hostage release deal secret, not informing the Americans. Second, they had not informed the Americans that she had been released and was heading for the airport.

Given those conditions, how could it be that she was deliberately targeted? EVEN given the unlikely event that the US would be so afraid of her writing that they would wish to do away with her?

1) They would have no reason to target her, being unaware of any ransom deal.
2) They would have no way to target her, being unaware that she was where she was when she was there.

Apparently, (in her own mind) Ms Sgena is the only one who can disseminate "the truth" of what is actually occurring in Iraq, and that "fact" led to the ordering of her execution prior to her being able to disseminate that truth.

She stated that the the vehicle she and her rescuers were hit by over 400 rounds by a machine gun; that she "scooped handfulls of bullets off of the seat"... Yet only one occupant of the vehicle was killed and Ms. Sgena was only wounded in the leg. Pretty sorry excuse for an "execution"! I for one have much more faith in the capabilities of our servicemen in the execution of their duties. (pun intended)

Anyone familiar with any type of firearms would know that staement to be a bald faced lie on the face of it. bullets that fly in such a hailstorm would have turned the vehicle and ALL the occupants into Swiss cheese, and any bullets entering the car wouldn't have magically stopped and fell onto the seats. And I have another question...IF the intent was to execute Ms. Sgena, why was she treated by the US and sent out on the next availible flight? Surely it would have been simple to simply ensure that every occupant of the vehicle was dead after it had been rendered immobile?

And while the cowed inhabitants of Eunichistan may like to believe that we would target journalists to prevent embarrassing "facts" to be made public, only the most inane of our own Moonbats would suscribe to such a position.

All you have to do is read any MS publication in the US to know the idiocy of such an allegation. If such a thing could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt; it would lead to a public uprising not seen since the halycon days of the 60's, and most likely the impeachment of the administration.

I am a supporter of the administration, and I would certainly believe that impeachment would be the only proper option in such an event. My loyalties lie with the Constitution, not any particular set of Politicians.

Let's recap...Communist Journalist is held hostage by the people that she holds up as the heroes in the Iraq conflict. Her (Italian) government may or may not have paid a ransom for her release, but in any case, a deal is brokered and Ms. Sgena is released by her captors to agents of her government. (according to US soldiers) The vehicle they were going to the airport in approached a military checkpoint at a high rate of speed and in a highly erratic manner, and didn't stop when ordered to by the soldiers manning the checkpoint. The soldiers fired on the vehicle, killing the driver and wounding Ms. Sgena. Now Ms. Sgena is claiming that they were assailed in a virtual hail of bullets, and that it was an intentional attempt to execute her.

Anyone that looks at this incident objectively must conclude that either:

A. Ms Sgena was correct, the US had a Sooper Sekrit™ way of determining her status and location,and wished to execute her for her views; and was capable enough to intercept her with no prior knowledge of her release, but incapable enough to finish the job.


B. Ms Sgena is a raving Moonbat of the highest order that doesn't let little things like facts and logic interfere with her political agenda/idiology.

I know which scenerio seems more likely to me, or am I blinded by my own idiological bent?

UPDATE: Courtesy of the AP, here are two pictures of the car that Ms. Sgena says was "caught in a hail of gun fire", and from which she "scooped up handfulls of bullets bullets off the seat"
Image hosted by
Image hosted by

Those must have been some of the new sooper sekrit magic bullets™ that the US Army has been issueing..."handfulls of bullets" on the seat, and yet NO BULLET HOLES in the body work. WHERE can I get some of this Ammo?

Posted by Delftsman3 at March 8, 2005 02:26 AM

I believe politicians are capable of many things , evil things. I believe there are those who would stoop to any level to attain their goal.
I do not believe any US soldier would willingly, deliberately, and knowingly fire upon a vehicle they knew contained innocent people. That is not to say that innocent people aren't dying daily, or that our troops may be responsible for their deaths. But those who die at the hands of our troops are more than likely victims caught in the middle of war. Which is almost certainly what happened in this instance. I can understand Ms. Sgena bitterness and anger. I can even understand her insistance that the incident was planned. It's called The Stockholm Syndrom. She is identifying with her captors. That is not unususal. It is as wrong to call her a moonbat (whatever that means) as it is for her to accuse those soldiers of anything other than doing their duty and following orders.

Posted by: wanda at March 8, 2005 04:17 AM

I don't believe that Stockolm Syndrom applies in this case Wanda. Ms Sgena went to Iraq with the express purpose of highlighting the US with as black a brush as she could. She was bitter and angry long before her arrival in-country. And was already a backer of the "Insurgants", which made her kidnapping all the more ironic, don't you think?

The physical evidence shows just about every statement she has made to be a bald-faced lie.

Think about it; a car is suppossed to have been hit with 400 rounds of .50 BMG and only one out of four people in the vehicle suffers a fatal wound?!?

Ms Sgena only had a minor flesh wound, two others were not hit at all?!? AND the fatally wounded agent was supposed to have been hit in the head with a .50 BMG and still retained his head?! I can tell you from experience that HAD he been hit by a Ma Deuce, there would only be one way to identify him and that would be a DNA test. I would be interested to see an autopsy report on him.

They WERE "victoms caught in the middle of a war", but the subsequent statements of Ms Sgena proves that she's far from an "innocent".

Posted by: delftsman3 at March 8, 2005 01:00 PM

Does being bitter and angry and disagreeing with the US's policy in Iraq, automatically make you sympathetic to the insurgents?
I know there are probably right wingnuts out there who would place me in the moonbat catagory and who would go so far as to say that I am sympathetic to the insurgents. While the former is merely a matter of opinion the ladder would be an outright lie. Therefore I tend to take it with a grain of salt when I see that MS Sgena was or is sympathetic to the insurgents.
I am sympathetic of the Iraqi people. Many of whom ARE involved in the resistance to the US's involvement in their country. That does not make me a supporter of those who would use violence to further their own political cause.
While I don't think any troops are ever told to target journalist, I do believe it is probable they are told not to feel the need to go out of their way to protect journalist. It is possible they are even told that some journalist (especially those who are deemed sympathetic to the other side ) should be treated no differently than those with whom they sympathize. For instance I doubt that any soldier was ever instructed to go out of his/her way to harm Geraldo Rivera, but it is unlikely they would have gone out of their way to protect him either.

Posted by: wanda at March 8, 2005 05:19 PM

The role of journalist in war is of extreme importance. If we only hear from those who agree with our agenda how can we ever know the whole truth?
The truth is neither left or right, but lies somewhere in between. It is the journalist who carry the burden of bringing both sides of the story to the table.
The bottom line is while I might not agree with what you say, I would defend your right to say it. This should be the goal of every person who claims to desire the spread of freedom and democracy. There can be no freedom nor democracy without freedom of the press.

Posted by: wanda at March 8, 2005 05:20 PM

Wanda, disagreeing with the US doesn't necessarily mean that you side with the Islamofacists, but if you read her past articles, Ms. Sgena certainly WAS a sympathizer.
Not to surprising, since she is a Communist working for a Communist publication.

She still has the right to put out her POV., that wasn't the issue. The issue here was her contention that she was targeted for execution.
and her continuing series of assertions that are demonstratably false, but that are seized upon as proof of US policies that fit her agenda, but which in fact,do not exist.

As far as "protecting journalists", that isn't the military's job. And every jounalist going into a war zone knows it. They go in knowing the risks they may have to take, and accept them as part of the job.

BTW, you don't need to split your comments, there is no cut off size in here, unlike Haloscan.

Posted by: delftsman3 at March 8, 2005 06:33 PM

I would also argue that "many of the Iraqi's" are involved in the uprising...only three of the fourteen provences have a large problem, and they are all the strongholds of Saddam's Baathist cohorts, so it's not too surprising that they are where the trouble lies. The LEADERS of the movement mostly seem to be Egyption, Saudi, and Syrian though.

Incidentially? those WMDS?, care to lay odds on what may be found in the Bekka valley in Lebanon?
Where Lebanese troops just found and dismantled two long range rockets purportedly targeted towards Israel? With all the truck traffic going to that area from Iraq in the months prior to the invasion, that just may be where Saddam had his cache.

And NO, I'm NOT proposing that we invade there. All we need do is support the Lebanese in their fight against Syrian control, and IF the WMD's are there, the truth will come out.

Posted by: delftsman3 at March 8, 2005 06:48 PM

One word (man I loved those halcyon daze!): FUKENEH!

Posted by: ZiPpo at March 8, 2005 07:45 PM

So we are suppose to believe that any WMD's found anywhere in the Middle East are those WMD's? Come on be realistic.
Saddam had no WMD's. If he had he would have used them. That is if he was the sadistically insane man he has been portrayed to be (which I believe he is).
But I thought we'd all decided the prevailing cause for invading Iraq was to spread democracy. Or are we back to the WMD's theory now? Man talk about your flip-flopping around.

Posted by: wanda at March 8, 2005 11:01 PM

Think about it Wanda. The last time he was confronted, the world blinked. It's entirely possible that he believed that it would happen again, and hiding those weapons In an allies territory would make perfect sense. We will know where they were made IF and when we find them.

I don't KNOW they are there, it's just an intriguing possiblity. Once the Lebanese take back control of their country, we will find out.

It's not a flip-flop, I do believe that the main goal of the invasion was/is a transformation of the political landscape in the ME.

Finding the WMD's would be just the icing on the cake.

Posted by: delftsman3 at March 8, 2005 11:22 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?