Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > US troops shoot freed Italian hostage

US troops shoot freed Italian hostage (Page 2)
Thread Tools
bubblewrap
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2005, 06:33 PM
 
To create a universe
You must taste
The forbidden fruit.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2005, 09:47 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Hmm, just popped back in here and it's the same old, same old isn't it. Americans still trigger happy in Iraq. People still prepared to do anything to justify the US Army's actions.
Yes, of course, we should all assume that the U.S. Army's actions were wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Evidence? Who needs it? Sorry, I forgot.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 12:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Do you not think you might wait 36 hours before saying something - say at least to give yourself time to make an intercontinental flight and have surgery to remove the shrapnel?
Absolutely not.

IF I was a reporter with unimpeded acess to media outlets, and IF my car was slowing to a stop at the checkpoint, AND I was still gunned down... I'd broadcast my story to everyone I could as fast as I could.

A flight and some shrapnel in my shoulder would not heed me one bit IF I knew my story to be true.
     
malvolio  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Capital city of the Empire State.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 01:10 AM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Evidence? Who needs it?
One dead body, one wounded survivor, eyewitness accounts.
None of this is evidence in your book?
/mal
"I sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you cheer up."
MacBook Pro 15" w/ Mac OS 10.8.2, iPhone 4S & iPad 4th-gen. w/ iOS 6.1.2
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 09:50 AM
 
Originally posted by malvolio:
One dead body, one wounded survivor, eyewitness accounts.
None of this is evidence in your book?
And so the conflicting eyewitness accounts don't matter, because they don't fit the agenda of certain people? I have a very hard time believing that the reporters claims of "300 to 400 rounds fired from and armored vehicle" true, because I know first hand that if that was the case, no one would have walked away from that car. I also believe that if it was an attempt to assassinate the reporter, as she claims, do to the information she has, she wouldn't have walked away from the car, nor would her escorts. She certainly wouldn't have been treated for her injuries by US personnel, they would have been much too busy putting a bullet in her head, murderous thugs that they are.

Don't tell me about evidence when you are willing to overlook all evidence that is counter to the answer you want to hear.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 10:04 AM
 
Originally posted by bubblewrap:
most tasteless cartoon I have seen in a long time!!
War is a dangerous time for soldiers! If they can't deal with it then they shouldn't do the job! A potential risk is not a reason to shoot first and ask later - otherwise the US should flatten the earth outside its borders because suicide bombers can be breed everywhere....hmmm, better flatten the whole world to make it a save place (not) to live!
***
     
IceBreaker
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 10:38 AM
 
Originally posted by bubblewrap:

sums up the situation correctly.

this was a sad accident, but how it is being used by those on the fringe left is even more sad.

     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 10:44 AM
 
I can't believe how much attention this story is getting. Sure, it's tragic, so is the whole war but the people who have and continue to suffer the most are Iraqis. When was the last time the international media scrutinised to this extent the death of Iraqis in similar situations?
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 11:44 AM
 
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
When was the last time the international media scrutinised to this extent the death of Iraqis in similar situations?
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=242428
     
BoomStick
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 01:45 PM
 
What probably and more than likely happened is the Italian terrorist sympathizers have realized that Italy readily pays ransoms of "hostages".

Since she is a "reporter" she can easily hunt her comrads to help get a big payoff so they can get continued back door funding from the Italian government.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 02:41 PM
 
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I can't believe how much attention this story is getting. Sure, it's tragic, so is the whole war but the people who have and continue to suffer the most are Iraqis. When was the last time the international media scrutinised to this extent the death of Iraqis in similar situations?
Sometimes it takes a sensational event like this to kick start it. While reading the local paper today, I read an article on exactly that: How Iraqi's deal with the check points and the cases of innocent civilians being fired upon. Personally, I don't know what the answer is. I don't want to see innocent civilians getting their cars (and bodies, more importantly) shot to hell, and yet I can't fault the troops for protecting themselves in a situation where you can't know what the driver of that car is thinking. I have absolute faith that the insurgents will make every attempt to use any tightening of the ROE to their advantage. Once again the civilians are the ones that suffer. There seems to be no easy answer to the problem.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 09:52 PM
 


Looks pretty intact.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 10:22 PM
 
Maybe all the bullet holes are on the other side.

How many posts before that picture is discredited?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 10:24 PM
 
Look closely.

The visible bullet hole in that picture is just under the driver's side windshield wiper arm.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 10:45 PM
 
Originally posted by placebo1969:
Maybe all the bullet holes are on the other side.

How many posts before that picture is discredited?
If so, then someone fired the alleged 300 - 400 rounds with a handgun. That would take quite a while with one trigger squeeze per shot and 15 round magazines. Not to mention the incredible feat of missing all but once.

Anything larger than a 9mm pistol round would definitely produce exit holes as well as entry. Military rifles and machine guns are powerful. Even the little M-16 bullet would go clean through a family sedan. Not to mention the weapons carried by the alleged "armoured viehicle."

This was a tragedy, no doubt. But the propaganda that quickly surrounded it is ludicrous, and a bit sick. It is one thing to mourn an accidental death, quite another to exploit it.
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 11:57 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If so, then someone fired the alleged 300 - 400 rounds with a handgun. That would take quite a while with one trigger squeeze per shot and 15 round magazines. Not to mention the incredible feat of missing all but once.

Anything larger than a 9mm pistol round would definitely produce exit holes as well as entry. Military rifles and machine guns are powerful. Even the little M-16 bullet would go clean through a family sedan. Not to mention the weapons carried by the alleged "armoured viehicle."

This was a tragedy, no doubt. But the propaganda that quickly surrounded it is ludicrous, and a bit sick. It is one thing to mourn an accidental death, quite another to exploit it.
A tragedy agreed. A conspiracy, no. But of course there are all too many people on this board who want to immediately assume the worst when it comes to the US. We have people hear comparing Bush to Hitler, for crying out loud.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 04:29 AM
 
Originally posted by placebo1969:
A tragedy agreed. A conspiracy, no. But of course there are all too many people on this board who want to immediately assume the worst when it comes to the US. We have people hear comparing Bush to Hitler, for crying out loud.
Not me Im defending the US on the conspiracy crap! Just face it every one it was a couple scared marines who where trigger happy.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 07:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Athens:
Not me Im defending the US on the conspiracy crap! Just face it every one it was a couple scared marines who where trigger happy.
That's certainly one possibility (though I believe they were soldiers, not Marines).

Another possibility is that the soldiers were doing their job exactly as they are supposed to, but there was an Italian police officer turned intelligence agent who forgot that when the cops tell you to stop, you stop.

Perhaps he was scared too? That would be perfectly understandable given the perilous mission he had just performed. Or perhaps he didn't have enough respect for those soldiers as authority figures whose commands he should have obeyed. This guy was a former senior police officer. Is it possible he didn't take those kids on the checkpoint seriously? Soldiers aren't mind readers. If a car tries to run a road block, it is going to get shot even in cities without the pervasive problem of suicide car bombs. Any cop should know that.

I hate to point the finger as the dead. The Italian agent was without doubt a hero. But the possibility his decisions and those of his government lead to this sequence of events should not be overlooked. American soldiers shouldn't be scapegoated for what looks increasingly like Italian incompetance, or maybe arrogance.

The Italian team shouldn't have been running around without telling the Army they were there. And they shouldn't have been paying money to terrorists. And of course, if they had just stopped the car, probably none of this would have happened.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Mar 9, 2005 at 08:09 AM. )
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 08:18 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
Look closely.

The visible bullet hole in that picture is just under the driver's side windshield wiper arm.
Is that the way they try to stop a speeding car? One bullet hole (maybe some more)?
***
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 08:18 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's certainly one possibility (though I believe they were soldiers, not Marines).

Another possibility is that the soldiers were doing their job exactly as they are supposed to, but there was an Italian police officer turned intelligence agent who forgot that when the cops tell you to stop, you stop.

Perhaps he was scared too? That would be perfectly understandable given the perilous mission he had just performed. Or perhaps he didn't have enough respect for those soldiers as authority figures whose commands he should have obeyed. This guy was a former senior police officer. Is it possible he didn't take those kids on the checkpoint seriously? Soldiers aren't mind readers. If a car tries to run a road block, it is going to get shot even in cities without the pervasive problem of suicide car bombs. Any cop should know that.

I hate to point the finger as the dead. The Italian agent was without doubt a hero. But the possibility his decisions and those of his government lead to this sequence of events should not be overlooked. American soldiers shouldn't be scapegoated for what looks increasingly like Italian incompetance, or maybe arrogance.

The Italian team shouldn't have been running around without telling the Army they were there. And they shouldn't have been paying money to terrorists. And of course, if they had just stopped the car, probably none of this would have happened.
But thats under the assumption that they had a chance to stop. I believe soldiers opened fired or they did fire a warning shot and that spooked the driver to speed up thinking he was under attack then they opened fire.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 08:19 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Another possibility is that the soldiers were doing their job exactly as they are supposed to
That's precisely the problem isn't it? American soldiers are massacring innocent people at checkpoints on a regular basis and no one seems to be addressing the problem. No one is redefining their job description and practices!

I grew up in a police state and have passed through more checkpoints than I care to think about. It was never possible to miss them. You start a kilometre up the road posting soldiers in the dark in case someone turns around, then you put up big signs saying checkpoint ahead, lots of big flashing lights too. Finally you put up 20 floodlights and turn night into day for 500m in all directions. You block the road with a few armoured cars and station troops with big guns all over. That's how you do a roablock and that is apparently similar to how the official checkpoints in Baghdad are done.

You do not waltz around waving your arms in the dark and shining a single light towards cars. Even if the Italians had had time to react, how were they supposed to know that a bunch of guys on the side of the road with a light were American soldiers and not insurgents? So far every time there's been a problem, it has been as a result of American PATROLS setting up ad hoc checkpoints. The Americans need to address this problem. They are killing too many people accidentally. If experts like these Italian agents can miss a checkpoint, then of course civilians are going to miss them.

Oh and don't tell me you don't catch terrorists and criminals in big, obvious roadblocks because history would prove you wrong.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
, but there was an Italian police officer turned intelligence agent who forgot that when the cops tell you to stop, you stop.
It's common cause that they had already gone through a number of checkpoints before this incident. It's also common cause that the Americans had been informed that the Italians were on their way. Once the embassy knew, it was the US's responsibility to pass the information through their chain of command. I doubt Italy has the mobile number of every Rambo wandering the airport road! The Italians had been told that they had passed the last checkpoint (which was true since they had passed all official checkpoints) so perhaps their guard was lowered but it shouldn't have to be up. If you're designing checkpoints for civilians, it shouldn't be possible for policemen to miss them! Your suggestiong that the Italians purposefully didn't stop is just ludicrous. Why would they stop at all the previous ones and then ignore this checkpoint?

The real question here is was this patrol told that the Italians were coming and if not why not?
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is it possible he didn't take those kids on the checkpoint seriously? I hate to point the finger as the dead, but that isn't a possibility that should be overlooked.
Actually the possibility that the deceased drove on can indeed be overlooked. First off, the Italians stopped at a number of checkpoints before they were attacked. Secondly, the guy who was killed wasn't driving.

Vmarks seems to make the same mistake you do. The guy who took a bullet to the temple was in the back seat. The two agents in the front seats were wounded as was Sgrena. The Italian government has said that 300 rounds were fired - they didn't say 300 rounds hit the car. If you believe the US soldiers, then the Americans were shooting at a fast moving target in the middle of the night. Logic says at least some of the bullets they fired didn't hit the target. Even if you had a real picture of the car and the resolution was sufficient to make anything out, you'd have no idea how many shots hit the target, how many went through the windows, which ones injured who etc.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And of course, if they had just stopped the car, probably none of this would have happened.
Nice to see you're still keeping an open mind about this.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 08:21 AM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Is that the way they try to stop a speeding car? One bullet hole (maybe some more)?
Clearly they're using bullets made in Texas. Magic ones that can wound the driver, go across and wound the passenger then go to the back and kill one person in the backseat and wound the other!
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 08:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Clearly they're using bullets made in Texas. Magic ones that can wound the driver, go across and wound the passenger then go to the back and kill one person in the backseat and wound the other!
Ever heard of a ricochet? 5.56mm bullets are designed to break into 3 pieces which bounce all over the place. The ballistic physics of high velocity rounds is very counterintuitive. I once saw a tracer round 5.56mm bullet deflect off of a leaf in a tree.

And once again, it isn't the Italian military who claim 300 rounds, it is the injured journalist. She has also said that the vehicle was moving at high speed. But of course, you with the open mind know that American soldiers are "massacreing" civilians.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 09:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
So far every time there's been a problem, it has been as a result of American PATROLS setting up ad hoc checkpoints. The Americans need to address this problem. They are killing too many people accidentally.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But of course, you with the open mind know that American soldiers are "massacreing" civilians.
Simey, do you intentionally twist peoples' words in some kind of mean-spirited discussion technique, or are you actually so blineded to read it like this? Either way, you need to stop this.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 09:19 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But of course, you with the open mind know that American soldiers are "massacreing" civilians.
Don't know if you include myself in your statement or if it was exclusicely meant towards Troll but I don't know anything what really happened there - I just don't understand it!

Wasn't it the US army who are saying that the car was speeding?

Didn't the Italian journalist claim that the car was not speeding?

speeding car -> lots of bullets ?? No?

only a few bullets -> targeted kill ?? No?

Why should the Italians keep on moving if they have been warned?
Why should the Italians keep on moving if they saw a checkpoint?


I think the most obvious thing that happened is:
- non-regular checkpoint
- short 1-3 seconds warning that wasn't recognized by the driver
- communist journalist who now uses this accident(?) to make the US army look even worse
***
     
f1000
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 09:19 AM
 
Originally posted by TETENAL:
Simey, do you intentionally twist peoples' words in some kind of mean-spirited discussion technique, or are you actually so blineded to read it like this? Either way, you need to stop this.
TETENAL, Simey may have misquoted Troll, but Troll did in fact use the word massacring in his post. Read Troll's post carefully.
     
Joshua
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 10:11 AM
 
Originally posted by TETENAL:
Simey, do you intentionally twist peoples' words in some kind of mean-spirited discussion technique, or are you actually so blineded to read it like this? Either way, you need to stop this.
Sheesh.

Originally posted by Troll:
That's precisely the problem isn't it? American soldiers are massacring innocent people at checkpoints on a regular basis and no one seems to be addressing the problem. No one is redefining their job description and practices!
Simey isn't the one twisting words.
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 10:19 AM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
Don't know if you include myself in your statement or if it was exclusicely meant towards Troll but I don't know anything what really happened there - I just don't understand it!

Wasn't it the US army who are saying that the car was speeding?

Didn't the Italian journalist claim that the car was not speeding?

speeding car -> lots of bullets ?? No?

only a few bullets -> targeted kill ?? No?

Why should the Italians keep on moving if they have been warned?
Why should the Italians keep on moving if they saw a checkpoint?


I think the most obvious thing that happened is:
- non-regular checkpoint
- short 1-3 seconds warning that wasn't recognized by the driver
- communist journalist who now uses this accident(?) to make the US army look even worse
The Communist journalist has changed her story several times. Most recently she has said that the car was speeding so fast it almost lost control on the wet pavement.

Leaving aside her obvious political motive to blame it all on the US soldiers, she isn't really a good witness. People who have survived traumatic incidents are notoriously unreliable witnesses. You really need to take anything she says with a huge pinch of salt.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are seizing on her unreliable account because of their political motives. The Communist newspaper comes immediately to mind, but also the Italian government is standing by their fallen officer -- which is understandable.

But also don't forget that it was the Italian government which made the decision to pay the ransom to terrorists (reportedly, out of Burlosconi's personal fortune). They also made the decision to carry out the operation in secret without coordinating with the US Army. That was probably stupid, and being stupid, they don't have much of an incentive to admit it.

However, the truth does eventually come out. If the Army really shot 300 - 400 rounds, there would be some physical evidence of such a massive barrage of fire. They probably (though not necessarily) maintain a count of their ammunition, and can proabably provide a pretty accurate account. However, neither the victims, nor their government, nor the press have any verifiable way to back up her wild accusation.

The evidence so far points the other way -- a small number of rounds were fired at the front of the car. Probably the soldier or soldiers were aiming for the engine block as they say. But bullets don't always go precisely where you are trying to aim, especially not on a speeding target at night. Nor do they stop just because they hit thin metal. Bullets ricochet around and 5.56mm bullets (which is what these probably were) are also designed to tumble and break apart on impact. Being high velocity, they have considerable penetration power and momentum. Once they hit something, the fragments would travel in unpredictable directions. The soldier probably didn't aim to kill, and he probably tried to aim not to kill, but he couldn't control where the fragments went.

The fact that it was only a few bullets doesn't make it a targeted kill. That is both a monsterous accusation, and frankly, ignorant. If he wanted them dead, they would have ended up dead. Soldiers are trained to shoot carefully and to conserve ammunition. That means if you fire a rifle, you almost always do so on semi-automatic, aiming each shot as best you can. This is hard with a moving target because of the lead time needed to compensate for the target's movement and the time needed for the bullet to reach the target. If you shoot a machine gun, you are trained to fire in bursts. 3-5 rounds for an M-60, or 6-9 rounds with a SAW. Anything more than that will just go wild and waste ammo.

I don't know why the driver didn't stop at the checkpoint, and nor does anyone because nobody seems to be asking (probably because of the reasons given above). But common sense would say you stop when soldiers tell you to. So one way or another, this was a tragic sequence of events, but not necessarily one where the soldiers were at fault.

However, the Army and the US government has promised an investigation into the actions of the Americans, and that is good. Unfortunately, the Italian government hasn't to my knowledge promised the same.
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 10:31 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, the Army and the US government has promised an investigation into the actions of the Americans, and that is good. Unfortunately, the Italian government hasn't to my knowledge promised the same.
IIRC the Italian government will co-operate with the American investigation.

But I was wondering. Do you know if there have been other investigations into the several/countless incidents similar to this but where the victims are Iraqis? I haven't found anything about it so I'm hoping you have.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 10:43 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ever heard of a ricochet? 5.56mm bullets are designed to break into 3 pieces which bounce all over the place. The ballistic physics of high velocity rounds is very counterintuitive. I once saw a tracer round 5.56mm bullet deflect off of a leaf in a tree.

And once again, it isn't the Italian military who claim 300 rounds, it is the injured journalist. She has also said that the vehicle was moving at high speed. But of course, you with the open mind know that American soldiers are "massacreing" civilians.
Let's just lay down some facts here shall we. Things both sides agree are true (most of this comes from the Independent):

1) Calipari and his team met with the US military at US headquarters in Baghdad on Friday afternoon and explained to the US what his team had come to do. It was arranged that an American colonel would be on hand at the airport when Ms Sgrena arrived for her flight back to Italy.
2) Around 5pm, they rented a four wheel drive (which proves that both of those photos are fake (although the desperation of the US blogs to exculpate their military are interesting)). The vehicle has apparently disappeared since the incident.
3) At 8.20pm, the Italian team reached the rendezvous on the outskirts of Baghdad. Sgrena was found blindfolded in the back of the car. They got back into their vehicle and left for the airport.
4) It was dark and pouring with rain. All scheduled flights had already left the airport and there was discussion as to whether they should still try to leave.
5) They drove fast through Baghdad (which is dangerous after nightfall) and at one point in central Baghdad nearly lost control of the car. During the trip through Baghdad, they contacted the Italian Embassy and explained that they had decided to fly out that night. They instructed the Embassy to confirm with the Americans that they were on their way.
6) They got to the airport road and passed two American checkpoints along the airport road without incident. They were expected at the checkpoints and were told at the second that they had passed the last checkpoint.
7) 700 metres from the airport building, the road narrows to a single, one-way lane and takes a 90-degree turn. It's still dark and raining.
8) Just around the corner, a temporary checkpoint had been set up by American troops patrolling the area.
9) The soldiers manning this checkpoint had been in Iraq for less than a week.
10) Numerous shots were fired at the car. The Americans claim to have fired warning shots and to have fired numerous times at the engine block of the car. No one says only 1 shot was fired. No one says 300 rounds hit the car.
11) There were 4 people in the car. Two were seriously wounded, one was dead and 1 was lightly wounded.

Where the two versions differ:
1) The Americans say: the car was travelling at high speed
The Italians say: it was travelling at 40-50kph. NOTE Simey, Sgrena said the car was travelling at high speed much earlier in the trip. That isn't inconsistent with saying it was going slowly when it was attacked.
2) US: The soldiers used hand signals and bright lights to warn the car and fired warning shots before hitting the car with shots
Italy: There was no warning. Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges. The Americans forced the Italians to remain in the car without medical attention for an hour. Btw, the first time 300 rounds was mentioned was when Sgrena's boyfriend (also a reporter) quoted the Italian government. Since then the figure of 300 rounds has been reported by Sgrena and by the Italian government. Read the Italian papers or the BBC's differing versions page to confirm.
3) US: There was a lack of co-ordination between the Italians and the Americans
Italy: The Americans were kept fully informed
4) US: It was a regrettable accident which will be aggressively investigated
Italy: Ms Sgrena claims it was a deliberate ambush to kill her, as the Italians had paid a ransom, a practice America opposes, and as she had learnt inconvenient facts from her abductors. Italy wants the names of the soldiers involved.

Personally, I think that on the facts that are agreed, the US has a lot to answer for. It's normal that the soldiers are scared shitless. They've been dropped into hell where most Iraqis want them out of their land. They are vastly outnumbered, have little idea who the enemy is and are told they're fighting a war they've already won. Their own government can't tell them when they might be getting out of there and they're just trying to survive long enough for it to all be over. So they're shooting first and asking questions later. The reason they're confused is because their government is confused. We're in Iraq to get rid of WMD, to spread democracy as a counter to the Islamic state, to give Iraqis a vote so they can decide to become an Islamic state, to prepare the ground for invading Iran, to make Iraq secure so we can go home ...
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 10:46 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Communist journalist
WTF difference does it make if she's a communist?
( Last edited by Troll; Mar 9, 2005 at 11:03 AM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 11:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
WTF difference does it make if she's a communist?
Ask Badidea, whose post I was responding to:

Originally posted by badidea:
- communist journalist who now uses this accident(?) to make the US army look even worse
Actually, of course, it does make a difference, as with any biased source. Speaking of which, can you point ot something other than a left wing newspaper with a track record of biased reporting? The Independent doesn't cut it.
     
icydanger
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: cold
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 11:35 AM
 
same ole same ole revisionist views from same ole poster- just shoot will ya! don't worry about corpses
Pain
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 01:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Let's just lay down some facts here shall we. Things both sides agree are true (most of this comes from the Independent):

Three to four hundred rounds were fired, afterwards the car seats were covered in spent cartridges.
Wow, so the soldiers were firing their weapons inside the vehicle? I take it back, it must have been an assassination attempt. Otherwise, they wouldn't be shooting inside the car leaving the spent shell casing, ejected from the weapon, all over the car seats.

I too grew up in a police state, and one thing I remember very clearly is you be cautious, you do as your told when coming to a check point, and you remember you have a lot more to lose than the guys with the guns.

Admit it Troll, it doesn't matter what the circumstances, your mind was made up before you heard any facts what so ever. I believe that I read on here you're a lawyer. I hope to hell you aren't a prosecutor.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 01:39 PM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Wow, so the soldiers were firing their weapons inside the vehicle? I take it back, it must have been an assassination attempt. Otherwise, they wouldn't be shooting inside the car leaving the spent shell casing, ejected from the weapon, all over the car seats.

I too grew up in a police state, and one thing I remember very clearly is you be cautious, you do as your told when coming to a check point, and you remember you have a lot more to lose than the guys with the guns.

Admit it Troll, it doesn't matter what the circumstances, your mind was made up before you heard any facts what so ever. I believe that I read on here you're a lawyer. I hope to hell you aren't a prosecutor.
That was an extremely unfair way to quote Troll, ThinkInsane. He had a list of facts that he said everyone agreed upon, and then a list of facts that were disputed. You listed one of his "disputed" facts under his heading "both sides agree," when he had it listed under "where the two versions differ."

It was claimed that several hundred rounds were fired. That seems unbelievable, but it was alleged by one of the primary witnesses, and Troll did put that under "where the two versions differ."
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 02:04 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
That was an extremely unfair way to quote Troll, ThinkInsane. He had a list of facts that he said everyone agreed upon, and then a list of facts that were disputed. You listed one of his "disputed" facts under his heading "both sides agree," when he had it listed under "where the two versions differ."

It was claimed that several hundred rounds were fired. That seems unbelievable, but it was alleged by one of the primary witnesses, and Troll did put that under "where the two versions differ."
The problem isn't that accounts differ. That is to be expected when the only witnesses on one side suffered the trauma of being shot. The problem is that the accounts that people are taking seriously appear to have been out-and-out fabricated.

300 - 400 rounds in an extraordinarily ineffective assassination attempt. Cartridges that find themselves in the back seats of a car - requiring, as Thinkinsane points out, that the weapon itself would have to be inside the car even though it missed 2 of the occupants. Mysterious armored vehicles that come, go, morph in the night. Cars that turn into SUVs, and then turn out to be small Toyotas.

There are also cars that move very slowly, or which zoom by at 40 to go kmh. I have only limited experience with military roadblocks. Mainly in training, but also at the entrance to a British run NATO base in Germany where a guard permanently had a loaded SA-80 pointed at the driver's head. You don't screw around in that situation, and you don't do 50 kph! You wouldn't even do that with an ordinary police stop, whether in the US or Italy.

Overriding all of this are two pervasive themes. The first is that if anything bad happens, it is per se the fault of those dumb trigger happy Americans. The second is that however wild, absurd, hysterical, self-contradictory, ignorant of military affairs or simple physics or ballistics, must be taken at face value if it promotes the political objective of attacking anything to do with the US presence in Iraq. The second is that the American troops are automatically not only to blame, but lying.

It gets very tiresome, especially when, as these stories usually do, the troops are vindicated on page A 53, bottom right hand corner.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 02:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Let's just lay down some facts here shall we. Things both sides agree are true (most of this comes from the Independent):

2) Around 5pm, they rented a four wheel drive (which proves that both of those photos are fake (although the desperation of the US blogs to exculpate their military are interesting)). The vehicle has apparently disappeared since the incident.

No, the toyota picture I posted is the one used in the Italian media, which say that Italy is having the car shipped to Italy to investigate. The photo I posted, according to Italy, is THE car in question.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 06:04 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem isn't that accounts differ. That is to be expected when the only witnesses on one side suffered the trauma of being shot. The problem is that the accounts that people are taking seriously appear to have been out-and-out fabricated.
I'm sorry, am I missing something? What leads you to believe the Italians' accounts are all fabricated?

Those intelligence officers work for a government that is 100% behind the war in Iraq. Why would they lie to make their employer look bad? Why would the Italian government itself lie considering doing so only makes their lives difficult?

The problem I think is that you jump on anything you can see and distort it to discredit the Italians. That's why you like epithets like terrorist cooperator and communist. That's why you insist on selectively using quotes from Sgrena to discredit her.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Cartridges that find themselves in the back seats of a car - requiring, as Thinkinsane points out, that the weapon itself would have to be inside the car even though it missed 2 of the occupants.
I noticed the point you're making and found it strange too, but I left it in because I was presenting both sides. But you make an assumption the way you've made many others. You're assuming the Italians were saying that the cartridges were in the Italian car rather than in the armoured car that they claim the Americans fired from.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Mysterious armored vehicles that come, go, morph in the night. Cars that turn into SUVs, and then turn out to be small Toyotas.
What armoured vehicles come and go. The story has always been that the Americans fired from an armoured car and it's common cause that an armoured vehicle was used to block the road. Sgrena has sometimes called it a tank. The Italians said they hired a 4x4. I have never seen talk of a Corolla and RAI Uno said just this afternoon that the vehicle involved in the attack is missing. Maybe vmarks would like to post an actual link though and perhaps a photo that you can actually see anything on.

I acted in a civil matter against the army where they had fired R4 rifles at a moving van. 70 separate entry holes were found in the body of the vehicle and the army admitted firing around 350 rounds (from about 10 guns). 2 of the 6 passengers died instantly. Another bled and was tortured to death in the two hours it took the ambulance to get there. A lot of shots missed, a lot probably went through the space where the windows were. Whatever, the point is the Americans should have known the Italians were coming. Central command should have known where these guys had set up their ad hoc roadblock and the other checkpoints should have notified them that the Italians were on their way.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are also cars that move very slowly, or which zoom by at 40 to go kmh.
The car was on the road with Sgrena in it for 40 minutes before it was attacked. Is it that hard to understand that at different points in that 40 minute journey, it was doing different speeds?
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have only limited experience with military roadblocks. Mainly in training, but also at the entrance to a British run NATO base in Germany where a guard permanently had a loaded SA-80 pointed at the driver's head. You don't screw around in that situation, and you don't do 50 kph! You wouldn't even do that with an ordinary police stop, whether in the US or Italy.
So you have no experience in setting up a temporary roadblock. I think it's a little easier to spot a NATO base that you know is there than it is to spot a few soldiers waving their arms in the dark and a camouflage armoured car parked in the middle of a road - especially when it's pouring with rain.

At this point I have to assume that you are purposefully trying not to understand. Of course you don't purposefully try to jump a checkpoint. That's precisely why the version the American right is putting forward on behalf of the Army is so ridiculous. You don't stop at two checkpoints and then decide to jump the third!! The Italians say they never saw it. They say they turned the corner, a bright light was switched on and shooting started. The Americans first said it was a marked checkpoint then admitted it wasn't like your NATO checkpoint. It was an ad hoc roadblock that an inexperienced patrol had set up. It's dark and it's raining - probably easy to miss.

I think there are two versions we can discount immediately. Those at either end of the spectrum. The first is Sgrena's accusation that this was a hit. Clearly it wasn't that. The second is that the checkpoint was properly positioned and clearly visible. Clearly it wasn't. Somewhere between those two stories lies the truth.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 06:29 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
The Italians said they hired a 4x4. I have never seen talk of a Corolla and RAI Uno said just this afternoon that the vehicle involved in the attack is missing. Maybe vmarks would like to post an actual link though and perhaps a photo that you can actually see anything on.
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/C...o/07/cia.shtml

Poi tutto s’è ridotto alla Toyota Corolla sulla quale viaggiavano Calipari, la Sgrena e l’ufficiale dei carabinieri che ha ribadito questa versione: nella sua ricostruzione non c’erano altri sotto il fuoco americano, e non era stato predisposto alcun convoglio.




If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 06:44 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem isn't that accounts differ.
No, the problem I referred to was that ThinkInsane quoted Troll in such a way to make it seem like Troll was saying that everyone agreed that several hundred rounds were fired, when really Troll just (accurately) wrote that it was alleged by one side and disputed by the other. (BTW, I believe ThinkInsane probably did that unintentionally.)

As for the rest of your post, I don't know anyone who believes the journalist's story that it was a hit on a journalist who knew too much. Maybe some do, just like some freepers right now are probably saying she was a terrorist sympathizer and we should now nuke Italy or some other such nonsense.

It was obviously a tragic accident, but it seems no less likely to me that it was an accident caused by some Americans with a poorly-done checkpoint than to have been caused by some Italians driving around uncautiously. Most likely, it was an unfortunate combination of the two.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2005, 09:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Whatever, the point is the Americans should have known the Italians were coming. Central command should have known where these guys had set up their ad hoc roadblock and the other checkpoints should have notified them that the Italians were on their way.
Has it occurred to you that they did know the Italians were coming? From the series of events you outlined it doesn't sound like the Italians knew where the car was going to be at any given time, so it would have been impossible for anyone to know exactly when the car would reach the checkpoint.

And since you assume they didn't know the Italians were coming, what do you think would have changed if they had? Nothing. If I'm sitting at a checkpoint, knowing that someone is coming sometime does nothing for me. It doesn't decrease the probability that the car coming down the road is a suicide bomber, it simply increases the chance that the car is the Italians.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 02:26 AM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
That was an extremely unfair way to quote Troll, ThinkInsane. He had a list of facts that he said everyone agreed upon, and then a list of facts that were disputed. You listed one of his "disputed" facts under his heading "both sides agree," when he had it listed under "where the two versions differ."

It was claimed that several hundred rounds were fired. That seems unbelievable, but it was alleged by one of the primary witnesses, and Troll did put that under "where the two versions differ."
Sorry about that, I didn't intend to make it look that way, and now that I see it pointed out I agree it makes it look rather unfair. My apologies Troll.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 02:44 AM
 
I just listened to the Fresh Air interview with Dexter Filkins And he talks some about the check point problem and how it is pretty much unsolvable. It's a good interview, if you have time, I suggest you listen to it.

Originally posted by malvolio:
A quote from a long article in another thread:

quote:
Shortly after Massey arrived in Iraq, his unit was ordered to man roadblocks. To stop cars, the Marines would raise their hands. If the drivers kept going, Massey says, we would just light em up. I didnt find out until later on, after talking to an Iraqi, that when you put your hand up in the air, it means Hello. He estimates that his men killed 30 civilians in one 48-hour period.
If you listen to the interview linked above, the NY Times reporter, who has been covering Iraq for a couple of years now, very rightly mentions that the symbol used by the US military to halt is a closed fist. He goes on to mention that to the Iraqi's, the closed fist means nothing and the open hand, palm out with fingers together means to stop. Given that, I'm going to call b.S. on the story you quoted. Yeah, there is a problem with communication that needs to be fixed, but I think it calls into question the veracity of the claim that 30 civilians were killed in 2 days because the Iraqi's thought the Marines were waving at them.

Filkins also mentions how those road blocks on the airport road come under attack daily by suicide and car bombers. Even if they knew the Italians were coming, I must assume there is more than one Toyota Corolla in Iraq, and the same precautions would be observed regardless if they knew or not.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
roberto blanco
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: mannheim [germany]
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 02:52 AM
 
okay

a) i do not and NEVER will believe that the soldiers at every possible checkpoint weren't informed AND alerted about the rescue attempt (AND the car involved). that is just such an obvious lie it's not even funny.

these kind of "rescue operations" (especially in this case) aren't simply an every day occurrence that might easily be discarded as insignificant information.

b) in any case though, what i think did happen is that soldiers fired a warning shot (or maybe just issued some kind of other warning), - the driver of the vehicle freaked, tried to get out of the situation and - unfortunately - that strategy backfired (excuse the pun).

that in no way though excuses the fact that this vehicle wasn't treated like one involved in a rescue mission, but rather like a "potential" suicide attack. there was absolutely NO reason for this to happen.

life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators - r. dawkins
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 05:07 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
Has it occurred to you that they did know the Italians were coming? From the series of events you outlined it doesn't sound like the Italians knew where the car was going to be at any given time, so it would have been impossible for anyone to know exactly when the car would reach the checkpoint.

And since you assume they didn't know the Italians were coming, what do you think would have changed if they had? Nothing. If I'm sitting at a checkpoint, knowing that someone is coming sometime does nothing for me. It doesn't decrease the probability that the car coming down the road is a suicide bomber, it simply increases the chance that the car is the Italians.
As I understand it, there are two permanent checkpoints on the Airport Road. The Italians had been through both of those checkpoints. Normally, after you pass through the second checkpoint, you're clear all the way to the airport, so it can't be that far from the terminal. I'm sure the soldiers at those checkpoints know roughly how long it takes to get from one to the other and how long it takes to get from the last one to the terminal building. There were no scheduled flights leaving the airport so would the soldiers not have enquired as to why the Italians were going to the airport? I doubt they see a carload of Italians very often and must have known they had a rescued hostage on board. You'd think that the soldiers at the checkpoint would have offered their ally an escort or at the very least called ahead to smooth the ride for them. It was dark, raining, there would have been very little traffic on the road, the Italians were in an unarmoured car. Strange to let them go it alone. Or how about at least saying to the Italians, "There's a temporary checkpoint ahead, please be careful." Maybe some of those things did happen. I hope someone is asking those questions though.

Since the temporary checkpoint was set up only 700m from the airport, it should have been easy to calculate the time it would take to get from the checkpoint to the temporary one. If the car was so well lit up by the Americans, surely they would have recognised the description given to them. Besides, there was a US colonel and a bunch of Italians at the Airport waiting for them to arrive. Surely someone knew roughly how long it would take to get from one checkpoint to the other and to get from the last checkpoint to the Airport itself. After all, at some point, they would have surely sent someone to go looking for the Italians?

What I find remarkable is how discretely this whole thing was handled. Once they got to the airport road, I can see no reason why they needed to still travel incognito. Driving in an unmarked car rather than in convoy was clearly a bad move and if that was a decision taken by the Italians, then that's probably part of the problem. I wonder if the Americans had been asked to escort them and refused and I wonder why they didn't offer.

As to the car, I've read numerous accounts saying that they hired a 4x4 so if those are photos of the car involved in the attack, perhaps they changed cars. That probably would have been a smart move if they were worried about insurgents taking them out.

The findings of the American investigation have been rejected by Italy and a new joint investigation is now starting so we'll find out the answers I guess. Amazing how much of an impact the actions of a few soldiers can have on international relations.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 05:11 AM
 
Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Sorry about that, I didn't intend to make it look that way, and now that I see it pointed out I agree it makes it look rather unfair. My apologies Troll.
No problem.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 07:07 AM
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...517327,00.html

'American troops are being taught to recognise that the Union Jack means British troops in an attempt to stop them firing on allied vehicles following thirty two 'blue on blue' attacks in the past year.'

'A British officer in Basra said: �The Americans 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.�'

At least they're doing something about it. Whilst it is a hard job and being 'jumpy' (for want of a better word) is understandable, the US forces chose to be there, therefore they have a responsibility to be professional and not open fire unless necessary. They have a responsiblity to not kill innocent Iraqis or US allies.

It does also mention in the article incidents involving other countries' opening fire on the British.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 07:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
WTF difference does it make if she's a communist?
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Ask Badidea, whose post I was responding to:
The difference is that a journalist who is writing for a communist newspaper might be biased against a capitalist country as the US!?
***
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 09:54 AM
 
Originally posted by badidea:
The difference is that a journalist who is writing for a communist newspaper might be biased against a capitalist country as the US!?
... or Italy?
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2005, 10:33 AM
 
Originally posted by moodymonster:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...517327,00.html

'American troops are being taught to recognise that the Union Jack means British troops in an attempt to stop them firing on allied vehicles following thirty two 'blue on blue' attacks in the past year.'

'A British officer in Basra said: �The Americans 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.�'

At least they're doing something about it. Whilst it is a hard job and being 'jumpy' (for want of a better word) is understandable, the US forces chose to be there, therefore they have a responsibility to be professional and not open fire unless necessary. They have a responsiblity to not kill innocent Iraqis or US allies.

It does also mention in the article incidents involving other countries' opening fire on the British.
Yes, kill first, think later. I suppose this is true for most soldiers of the world.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,