# Italian hostage



## padisha emperor (Mar 5, 2005)

The italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena, is free now.
And today she lands on the Italian soil.

But....


Yesterday, the convoy with Giuliana and the italian secert service members were the poor casualties of the US army's shoots : the convoy was stopped by a US check point, but the US soldiers opened the fire on the convoy.
Giuliana Sgrena was wounded, she got a bullet in the lung.
But the saddest is that an Italian was killed by the US soldiers.
Nicola Capilari was the CHIEF of the italian secret services ni Iraq. He had free before Giuliana Sgrena other Italian Hostages.
And yesterday, when he saw that the US soldiers shot on the italian convoy, he lie down Giuliana, to protect her from the US shoots. This heroism csot to him his life, he 's dead to save the life of the hostage.

Good job, US soldiers, after the US soldiers and the Brits, now they kill Italian heroes....


----------



## Annie (Mar 5, 2005)

PE you left a little bit out:

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/05/eng20050305_175687.html



> US army admits shooting at freed Italian hostage
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnney (Mar 5, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena, is free now.
> And today she lands on the Italian soil.
> 
> But....
> ...


hey retard, they responded to a speeding car towards their check point as they were trained.  now they are supposed to wait to see whose speeding up on them before they shoot?  bullshit.


----------



## Johnney (Mar 5, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> PE you left a little bit out:
> 
> http://english.people.com.cn/200503/05/eng20050305_175687.html


well geez Kathy... you expect him to quote the whole article so he cant berate us anymore?


----------



## taff (Mar 5, 2005)

Padisha , God wasted a good arsehole when he placed teeth in your mouth.


----------



## onedomino (Mar 5, 2005)

Padisha deliberately leaves out information to make it seem like the Americans were at fault for protecting themselves from an unknown car speeding toward one of their checkpoints. Apparently, Padisha would prefer that Americans die in suicide car bomb attacks after letting unknown speeding cars rush up to them. Padisha, you are despicable for citing the shooting out of context.


----------



## krisy (Mar 5, 2005)

Now,now. Padisha is just using this to ridicule the BRAVE men that are keeping OUR world safe.  Wonder what he would do in the same situation? Probably throw his hands in the air and run for his life. They are good at that-aren't they?

 :fifty:


----------



## Wolfe (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> Now,now. Padisha is just using this to ridicule the BRAVE men that are keeping OUR world safe.  Wonder what he would do in the same situation? Probably throw his hands in the air and run for his life. They are good at that-aren't they?
> 
> :fifty:


The French said goodbye to bravery when the first German tanks broke through the Ardennes Forest in WWII. The French seem consigned to shooting unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

I've just read an article this morning that quotes Giuliana Sgrena as saying the vehicule was going at a normal speed. Who knows. One thing I don't understand...if they had been told that this convoy was on it's way...if they really thought this could be an attack, instead of shooting at the car why not just shoot at the tires or even say the engine...why shoot the hell out of the car and whoever is inside? 
I found this:
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/low/world/europe/4323361.stm
Sunday, 6 March, 2005, 15:02 GMT 
Hostage fears troops targeted her
 Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena has suggested US troops deliberately tried to kill her moments after she was released by her kidnappers in Baghdad. 
Ms Sgrena, writing in her left-wing newspaper Il Manifesto, described how her car came "under a rain of fire". 

At that moment, she said she recalled her captors' words that some Americans "don't want you to go back". 

The US military, who said troops fired on the speeding car after it failed to stop, has opened a full investigation. 

A top Italian secret service agent, Nicola Calipari, died in the incident as he shielded Ms Sgrena from the gunshots. 

He had led the efforts to negotiate the release of the correspondent, held captive in Iraq for more than a month. 


"Everyone knows that the Americans do not like negotiations to free hostages, and because of this I don't see why I should exclude the possibility of me having been the target" 
Giuliana Sgrena
Ex-hostage



The body of Mr Calipari, who is being treated as a national hero, is lying in state in an imposing monument in the centre of Rome before a state funeral on Monday. 

The incident in Baghdad threatens to have continuing political fallout in Rome, says our correspondent there David Willey. 

Pressure will grow on Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a staunch ally of US President George W Bush, to reconsider the wisdom of keeping on Italian peacekeepers in Iraq, our correspondent says. 

Already, the Italian foreign ministry has warned all Italian nationals to avoid travel to Iraq. 

Sgrena's account 

Details remain unclear about exactly what happened as the car carrying the Italian journalist, Calipari and two other agents made its journey towards Baghdad's airport late on Friday. 

The US military says that the car was speeding as it approached a checkpoint and that soldiers used hand signals, flashed lights, and fired warning shots in an attempt to stop it, before opening fire. 


DIFFERING ACCOUNTS


US: Forces fired on a vehicle that was approaching at high speed 
Troops attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots 
When the driver didn't stop, the soldiers shot into the engine block 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sgrena: The driver had spoken twice to the embassy and to Italy that we were on our way to the airport 
We were less than a kilometre [from the airport]... when... I remember there was shooting 
The driver began screaming that we were Italian 
We weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation 
In pictures: Joy and dismay


Italian press reaction



In her account for Il Manifesto, Ms Sgrena said the kidnappers had released her willingly. 

When she got in the car, Calipari took off her blindfold and was "an avalanche of friendly phrases, jokes". 

"Nicola Calipari was seated at my side. The driver had spoken twice to the embassy and to Italy that we were on our way to the airport that I knew was saturated with American troops. We were less than a kilometre they told me... when... I remember there was shooting. 

"The driver began screaming that we were Italian, 'We're Italian! We're Italian!'" 

Ms Sgrena has said the car was not going particularly fast. 

Upon her release, she said, "They [the kidnappers] said they were committed to releasing me, but that I had to be careful 'because there are Americans who don't want you to go back'." 

In another interview with Sky Italia TV, she said it was possible the soldiers had targeted her because Washington opposed the policy of negotiating with kidnappers. 



Calipari: 'Extraordinary hero'



"Everyone knows that the Americans do not like negotiations to free hostages, and because of this I don't see why I should exclude the possibility of me having been the target," she said. 

She said she did not know if a ransom was paid for her release - a policy the US does not approve either. 

Ms Sgrena was abducted on 4 February, and later appeared in a video begging for help and urging foreign troops to leave Iraq. 

Much of the country was opposed to the US-led war in Iraq and the government's decision to send 3,000 Italian troops to Iraq.


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

I started a thread simliar to this in War On Terror. Her accusations and insinuations are ridiculous,but not surprising coming form a far lefty.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> I started a thread simliar to this in War On Terror. Her accusations and insinuations are ridiculous,but not surprising coming form a far lefty.


Why does it always have to go back to this whole Righty/Lefty shit...is that all you can come up with. Like "oh" she's lying because she's a Lefty...So if she was a righty would you say oh right, she must be saying the truth...plus how do you know she's a lefty, does it mention it anywhere?


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Why does it always have to go back to this whole Righty/Lefty shit...is that all you can come up with. Like "oh" she's lying because she's a Lefty...So if she was a righty would you say oh right, she must be saying the truth...plus how do you know she's a lefty, does it mention it anywhere?




If you read your own threads,you would see that it says that she writes for a left wing paper or magazine-is that clear enough for ya brainiac? Also,if you go back to my thread it states that she was clearly against the war. Not to mention,what ounce of proof does she have that our soldiers were going after her ? Does she have one shred of evidence other than her own paranoid dillusions?


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> If you read your own threads,you would see that it says that she writes for a left wing paper or magazine-is that clear enough for ya brainiac? Also,if you go back to my thread it states that she was clearly against the war. Not to mention,what ounce of proof does she have that our soldiers were going after her ? Does she have one shred of evidence other than her own paranoid dillusions?


Do you have proof of the contrary? All I'm saying is that the poor woman has been shot, the soldiers knew whe was coming around, they shot the hell out of the car instead of shooting say at the tires and she says they were driving at resonable speed...mistakes happen...thats fine...but insinuating that she made this whole thing up is pure crap. 
In her position I would probably be asking myself the same questions...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Hey fucker, just because you are anti-american you don't need to take this tone!  She was obviously against the war, think perhaps it's possible that the story from her side could of possibly been biased?


Greeting fellow fucker...for like the 1000th time I'm not anti-american...I came in saying "who knows" and only said she's said the opposite of the soldiers, so who do we believe...?
Get off you high horse...


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Do you have proof of the contrary? All I'm saying is that the poor woman has been shot, the soldiers knew whe was coming around, they shot the hell out of the car instead of shooting say at the tires and she says they were driving at resonable speed...mistakes happen...thats fine...but insinuating that she made this whole thing up is pure crap.
> In her position I would probably be asking myself the same questions...




SHE says they were driving at reasonable speed,the U.S. soldiers did not. I have to take the word of an American soldier over that of a left wing journalist against the war. The bias in the media has been proven over and over. Have you ever put yourself in a soldiers shoes? They have terrorist everyday blowing up vehicles while driving right at them. What would you do if you started seeing your life flash before you eyes?


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> High horse? well the fact is so long as we are on this board I will always be higher than you!
> 
> And don't be a damn liar, you have never had anything positive to say since the day you joined this board!  Only reason that you haven't been banned yet is due to the fact that the rest need some around here to beat up on!


Yep thats all u do here...beat up on other people who don't share the same righty views as you...kind of sad...
You don't even want to debate...you just insult...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> SHE says they were driving at reasonable speed,the U.S. soldiers did not. I have to take the word of an American soldier over that of a left wing journalist against the war. The bias in the media has been proven over and over. Have you ever put yourself in a soldiers shoes? They have terrorist everyday blowing up vehicles while driving right at them. What would you do if you started seeing your life flash before you eyes?


I totally understand that...thats why I said mistakes happen...but I also asked...why don't they shoot at the tires or the engine if they knew she would be coming by at some point...why take the risk of killing her?


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yep thats all u do here...beat up on other people who don't share the same righty views as you...kind of sad...
> You don't even want to debate...you just insult...




That's not true. If you visit here enough,you will see plenty of people with different views on this board that are not picked on or banned. Teased,maybe-but all in good fun. If I am correct,you are the one that started getting testy because I brought up the fact that she is left wing.


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I totally understand that...thats why I said mistakes happen...but I also asked...why don't they shoot at the tires or the engine if they knew she would be coming by at some point...why take the risk of killing her?



I will have to go back and read,but again,I don't see where it says the U.S. soldiers KNEW she was on board.


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

I'm not finding anything that says they knew she was on board. If rumors are true,maybe ransom should not have been negotiated without first telling the U.S. what was going on. Also,the soldiers say they were flashing lights and waving hands. Those SS agents knew those were American soldiers that would not hurt them-their ally-so why did they not stop?


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Really?  I am one of the more friendly ones for the most part!  What's sad is that you are coming from the UK and joined a US message board stricly to condemn our views! Surpirsed you are not french with such a spineless move!


I don't just condemn your views, I've gone in other threads as well and expressed my opinion...I just think that for the most part...people in here are really close minded and in no case want to debate a view that is contrary to theirs...that is what you like to call Anti-american. Whats the point in always agreeing with you? What would either of us learn? If you can't have debates on anything because you think it's being anti-american than I'm really sorry. The matter of the fact is that most of the threads are either pro-american or bashing on europe and France. It's not fun if their is no one to defend (when that can be done)...


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Really?  I am one of the more friendly ones for the most part!  What's sad is that you are coming from the UK and joined a US message board stricly to condemn our views! Surpirsed you are not french with such a spineless move!



SE she is French.Only in the UK studying english.Thats why he never answered your question.Just thought id clear that up.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> I'm not finding anything that says they knew she was on board. If rumors are true,maybe ransom should not have been negotiated without first telling the U.S. what was going on. Also,the soldiers say they were flashing lights and waving hands. Those SS agents knew those were American soldiers that would not hurt them-their ally-so why did they not stop?


"Sgrena: The driver had spoken twice to the embassy and to Italy that we were on our way to the airport 
We were less than a kilometre [from the airport]... when... I remember there was shooting 
The driver began screaming that we were Italian 
We weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation 
"

Obviously the soldiers around the airport would have been informed...
If the soldiers weren't infomed than thats the fault of the embassy, or American officials...I don't see how the embassy wouldn't have let the american troops know she was on her way...there is no way


----------



## sitarro (Mar 6, 2005)

Let me see if I understand this story . After years of anti American , anti Iraqi war crap from the communist ultra left wing rag Il Manifesto , one of their star reporters gets abducted by unknown gunmen near Bagdad University .After 2 weeks in captivity she appears on TV convincingly pleading for not only her life but the exit of the Italian soldiers from Iraq . After a donation ...err .. I mean a ransom of up to 8 million euros she is released  but only after her trustworthy captures tell her to be wary of those awful Americans that would rather her dead than to be released unharmed . Oh yes , Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi , an ally of America , is up for re-election .
 If the American soldiers wanted her taken out , why is she alive and spreading her bullshit to the world . If there was a rain of fire on the car ( a pile of shit little miniature euro car no doubt)how did the driver make it out alive , why didn't the "car" blow up ? 
 I know that the Euros aren't very curious and will believe almost anything bad about the hated Americans , but really . They also believe that they will fly around on an airliner with coctail bars , gymnasiums and maybe even a pool , safely. . . you clowns are idiots .


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I don't just condemn your views, I've gone in other threads as well and expressed my opinion...I just think that for the most part...people in here are really close minded and in no case want to debate a view that is contrary to theirs...that is what you like to call Anti-american. Whats the point in always agreeing with you? What would either of us learn? If you can't have debates on anything because you think it's being anti-american than I'm really sorry. The matter of the fact is that most of the threads are either pro-american or bashing on europe and France. It's not fun if their is no one to defend (when that can be done)...



DO you understand what kind of shit the American people have to listen to on a daily basis. Constant battering from other countries,comparing our President to Hitler. That is what I call failure to debate. No one says you always have to agree,but it isn't disagreements that get Americans so pissed off,it's the in style American bashing that goes on around the world. But they always come back when they need something-don't they?


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> "Sgrena: The driver had spoken twice to the embassy and to Italy that we were on our way to the airport
> We were less than a kilometre [from the airport]... when... I remember there was shooting
> The driver began screaming that we were Italian
> We weren't going particularly fast given that type of situation
> ...




Maybe a communication problem,or maybe they were just flat out doing what they shouldn't have been. Speeding through a checkpoint. Were they being chased? I don't see that anywhere. Or maybe they were trying to get through fast enough because a ransom had been paid and no one knew anything about it.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Thanks Taff, now it's a little clearer were the attitude comes from! All american are no good because his countries leader supported the Saddam regime and we took it out so the money funnel is gone!


It's funny how you guys all have the same speech...it's getting really sad...is that all you can come up with?

Plus like I said before, I grew up in New Jersey so I've had the best of both world...attitude?!


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> It's funny how you guys all have the same speech...it's getting really sad...is that all you can come up with?
> 
> Plus like I said before, I grew up in New Jersey so I've had the best of both world...attitude?!




I haven't seen you come up with anything too special. Don't deny the "attitude" that the U.S. gets from around the world,because that is what it is. Itall goes back to us having a Conservative President. Europe is Liberal and the middle east-well,they just hate everyone.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> Maybe a communication problem,or maybe they were just flat out doing what they shouldn't have been. Speeding through a checkpoint. Were they being chased? I don't see that anywhere. Or maybe they were trying to get through fast enough because a ransom had been paid and no one knew anything about it.


Well who are we to believe about the speeding, she says they weren't and the soldiers say they were. She says that they just started shooting, the soldiers say they told them to stop...who really know. Like I said mistakes happen. But I think like you said there obviously was a communication problem...either they knew or they didn't know she was on her way...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> I haven't seen you come up with anything too special. Don't deny the "attitude" that the U.S. gets from around the world,because that is what it is. Itall goes back to us having a Conservative President. Europe is Liberal and the middle east-well,they just hate everyone.


No I totally agree that the US gets a lot of underserved crap...thats for sure...but so does Europe and particularly France, especially on this message board...with a passion it seems...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Hey I'm from Jersey myself, too bad you weren't still here cause I'd have to kick your ass!


Really? Where from???
I was around Morris Town, lived in Morrisplains...went to Whippany Park High School...


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Well who are we to believe about the speeding, she says they weren't and the soldiers say they were. She says that they just started shooting, the soldiers say they told them to stop...who really know. Like I said mistakes happen. But I think like you said there obviously was a communication problem...either they knew or they didn't know she was on her way...



Maybe. But I don't see this anywhere being the soldiers' fault. They did their jobs-period. I would just suggest that you not be too naieve about a far left wing journalist. She is trying to spread more hate toward the U.S.


----------



## sitarro (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yep thats all u do here...beat up on other people who don't share the same righty views as you...kind of sad...
> You don't even want to debate...you just insult...


 Being British I would guess that you have never fired a gun . Do you think it is easy to shoot tires out from under a moving car . If they were shot out do you really believe that would have stopped the car ? The soldiers did say they were shooting for the engine block , that is what would have stopped the car .
 The story is bullshit , the commies are lying . The kidnapping was probably faked in order to get some money to the terrorist .


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> It's funny how you guys all have the same speech...it's getting really sad...is that all you can come up with?
> 
> Plus like I said before, I grew up in New Jersey so I've had the best of both world...attitude?!


Your writing from the UK, saying you grew up in the USA.Sounds like your embarressed to be French.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Your writing from the UK, saying you grew up in the USA.Sounds like your embarressed to be French.


Not embarrased to be French...just not bothered...I don't really assimilate myself to anything...neither totally french, nor british, nor american.


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 6, 2005)

The speed is not important, because : 

The US soldiers are in Iraq to keep the peace, aren't they ?

So, when a car is driven  to a US checkpoint, it is not necessary a terrorist car. And even if the car's seppd was high, it was not a reason to shot. Why ? j07950 said it, the US soldiers should had to shot in the tires, not necessary in the car glass to kill some guys.
Their job - US troops - is to keep peace, but the problem - at least for the soldiers in this checkpoint - is that some of the soldiers are too much nervous, affraid, and they shot on everything who can be suspect.
the sentence : "shoot first, look after" is not a good moto when you'r job is the peace.
If the US soldiers would have shot in the tires : the cars would have stop, and then the US soldiers would have went to the cars, saw that it was an italian convoy, and then, no problem.


So, What I mentionnedin my first posthere was right, the speed, who cares ? the US soldfiers job is not to kill and to shoot everywhere, but to keep the peace. It is hard, so if the US soldiers destroy the peace too, it won't be the end soon...

THat's what I say.

the facts are on my sides : how many civilians, haw many british soldiers killed by the US armied forces ?

British and French soldiers are more able to do a such job, look at Yougoslavia.


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> No I totally agree that the US gets a lot of underserved crap...thats for sure...but so does Europe and particularly France, especially on this message board...with a passion it seems...




Europe and France don't get picked on for no reason. We are told we are  ignorant for being patriotic,for agreeing with our president. I figure if Europe was so high and mighty-they would be the most powerful place on earth. We are supposed to be ashamed of our accomplishments,forget it!! That's what they imply IMO


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The speed is not important, because :
> 
> The US soldiers are in Iraq to keep the peace, aren't they ?
> 
> ...




Fait gaffe a ce que tu dis...ils vont t'attaquer plus vite que tu le pense...c'est repartis, je le sens...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> Europe and France don't get picked on for no reason. We are told we are  ignorant for being patriotic,for agreeing with our president. I figure if Europe was so high and mighty-they would be the most powerful place on earth. We are supposed to be ashamed of our accomplishments,forget it!! That's what they imply IMO


I think that neither europe or the US is flawless...there are always problems and different political views between the two...bashing on each others countries sure does no good...


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The speed is not important, because :
> 
> The US soldiers are in Iraq to keep the peace, aren't they ?
> 
> ...




Give me a breaky-that's what I say!!!

You are ignoring the fact that they were told to STOP!!! My 4 year old knows what that means. It is laughable at least that French soldiers could "do such a job".  :duh3:


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Fait gaffe a ce que tu dis...ils vont t'attaquer plus vite que tu le pense...c'est repartis, je le sens...




English only!!!! It's the official language -hehe!!!

We have enough trouble understanding padisha when he tries to type English!!!

that's what I say!!! :usa:


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 6, 2005)

gaffe aussi, on est censé parler anglais, ils sont capables de nous exclure pour ça, toute raison est bonne à prendre 




> bashing on each others countries sure does no good...



It 's sure

But the problem is an incomprehension between USA and Europe.
The conception of a lot of things are different.

to solve this crisis, we should speak  arund a table, and expose our points of view, with the reason, and let the others speaking without insult them.

The dialogue is the clue, not the monologue with weapons or insults


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> Give me a breaky-that's what I say!!!
> 
> You are ignoring the fact that they were told to STOP!!! My 4 year old knows what that means. It is laughable at least that French soldiers could "do such a job".  :duh3:


Yeah I don't know why the whole french soldier comes into it...anyway
One thing I'm woundering. If the car was speeding and that they shot at it to stop it. They would have had to do it from far away, otherwise there would have been a risk of the car actually reaching the checkpoint...if thats the case then could the driver actually understand that the soldiers wanted him to stop. Also if they were using torches and light signals or whatever, could the driver, thinking the soldiers had been told they were arriving think that this might be a welcome sign or something...


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> gaffe aussi, on est censé parler anglais, ils sont capables de nous exclure pour ça, toute raison est bonne à prendre
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes darling, we should sit down at a round table and talk, without insults. AND, that would apply to you too.


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 6, 2005)

Krisy, when you're in a car, when some people told you stop, if you drive fast, you can not necessary hear  the voice and the order. Aboce all if the windows are closed.


And I have doubts : 

2 tanks abrahams - or maybe a other model - shot and destroy the last years a civilian bus. why ? because he didn't stop.
What can make a civilian bus with 20 children against 2 tanks with heavy armor and 88 guns ? to graze the paint of the tanks ?


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Also if they were using torches and light signals or whatever, could the driver, thinking the soldiers had been told they were arriving think that this might be a welcome sign or something...




Meaning someone could have messed up the signals, or misread them?


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I don't know why the whole french soldier comes into it...anyway
> One thing I'm woundering. If the car was speeding and that they shot at it to stop it. They would have had to do it from far away, otherwise there would have been a risk of the car actually reaching the checkpoint...if thats the case then could the driver actually understand that the soldiers wanted him to stop. Also if they were using torches and light signals or whatever, could the driver, thinking the soldiers had been told they were arriving think that this might be a welcome sign or something...




I suppose this is where the disagreement comes in. I still want to know if the soldiers knew they were coming. To me though it's still irrelevant. For all they knew the car could have had terrorist captors in it-whatever. I do believe that those agents knew they wanted them to stop. Waving hands in the air and flashinglights by the military could not be interpreted many other ways IMO.


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The speed is not important, because :
> 
> The US soldiers are in Iraq to keep the peace, aren't they ?
> 
> ...



1.Dont ever place French wooses on a par with their British counterparts.

2.What makes you think the French could do a better job.Rememeber those troops in Iraq have been in a combat situation for months which is better than any training in the world.

3.French troops are Gay.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Meaning someone could have messed up the signals, or misread them?


No meaning maybee the driver didn't understand what the hell the signals were for if he thought the soldiers knew that they were on the way...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Damn nice are, come from money do ya?  I'm from the shitty side of Jersey, in South Plainfield. not far from say...New Brunswick,Edison,Piscataway if you know the area.


Right...
No don't really come from money, my dad works for Exxon, they paid for everything...house and all...it sure was a nice area


----------



## krisy (Mar 6, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Krisy, when you're in a car, when some people told you stop, if you drive fast, you can not necessary hear  the voice and the order. Aboce all if the windows are closed.
> 
> 
> And I have doubts :
> ...




But they flashed lights and waved hands because they  knew they could not be heard. Come on-anyone with sense knows that means stop!!

Do you think terrorists couldn't hijack a school bus? Plaese. Airplanes buses,anything mobile has the potential to havea terrorist. If youcan handle it,picture being one of these soldiers and seriously think about what they deal with on a daily basis. If they do not make the right decision,we have no military left and many civilians will die because  they were worried about saving a terrorist life. It is war,not playtime.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> No meaning maybee the driver didn't understand what the hell the signals were for if he thought the soldiers knew that they were on the way...



Isn't that what I just said??


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

krisy said:
			
		

> But they flashed lights and waved hands because they  knew they could not be heard. Come on-anyone with sense knows that means stop!!
> 
> Do you think terrorists couldn't hijack a school bus? Plaese. Airplanes buses,anything mobile has the potential to havea terrorist. If youcan handle it,picture being one of these soldiers and seriously think about what they deal with on a daily basis. If they do not make the right decision,we have no military left and many civilians will die because  they were worried about saving a terrorist life. It is war,not playtime.



After seeing everyone's point of view I think it was just a missunderstanding. Perhaps the driver should have known that it meant stop...maybee he thought they knew and didn't actually know what they were doing and was going to stop closer to the checkpoint. Who knows.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Isn't that what I just said??


The soldiers probably did the right signals...I think the driver didn't have a ficking clue to what they were for...like I said, thinking the soldiers knew they were coming


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> 3.French troops are Gay.



TEEHEE!   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





En Guarde!


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

What happened to the whole "Not calling eachother names"?


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> What happened to the whole "Not calling eachother names"?



Stop talking bollocks and we,ll stop insulting you.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> What happened to the whole "Not calling eachother names"?



I don't remember agreeing to that.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I don't remember agreeing to that.


LOL...fair enough


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Stop talking bollocks and we,ll stop insulting you.


Wait don't talk so british...they might not understand "bollocks"...alright for everyone else...bollocks means crap...


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> LOL...fair enough



Take a walk over to the Canada section, you'll see I get it just as good as I dish it out.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Take a walk over to the Canada section, you'll see I get it just as good as I dish it out.


Really? 
Thats gotta be entertaining...


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Really?
> Thats gotta be entertaining...



It is!


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Wait don't talk so british...they might not understand "bollocks"...alright for everyone else...bollocks means crap...



I thought bollocks meant "balls".


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> I thought bollocks meant "balls".


Depends how u say it...the way he said it means "your talking bull-shit...crap"


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Depends how u say it...the way he said it means "your talking bull-shit...crap"


I didnt speak it in British i spoke it in English.

This is British - Cauc cle wyneb cachau ewythr cachau . Translate that.But dont take it personaly


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> I didnt speak it in British i spoke it in English.
> 
> This is British - Cauc cle wyneb cachau ewythr cachau . Translate that.But dont take it personaly


Isn't that gaelic? You knew what I meant by british anyway, don't be a fag...


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Celtic, Gaelic is Irish and Scottish


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Depends how u say it...the way he said it means "your talking bull-shit...crap"



I know, I was being facetious.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Celtic, Gaelic is Irish and Scottish


Than say Celtic...don't say it's british...that doesn't exist. When I said British it was to emphasis the difference between english spoken in Britain and english spoken in the US (because they say english and not american)...


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Than say Celtic...don't say it's british...that doesn't exist. When I said British it was to emphasis the difference between english spoken in Britain and english spoken in the US (because they say english and not american)...


Celtic is British.Before the Romans arrived and kicked our arses out of England and into Wales.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Celtic is British.Before the Romans arrived and kicked our arses out of England and into Wales.


Was celtic spoken all over britain?


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Yes.Except Scotland


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Nevermind the bollocks, God save the Queen!



"The facist regime, they made you a moron, potential H-bomb"   

Gotta love those Sex Pistols.   

No offense Taff!


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

It gets stranger -

Dogs bollocks means the best.
Your the dogs bollocks.
That was the dogs bollocks.
It is the dogs bollocks.
Wow, absolute dogs bollocks.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> lol, well you should come over to the states and try some Rocky Mountain Oysters!



Or come to Canada and try Prarie Oysters!


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> lol, well you should come over to the states and try some Rocky Mountain Oysters!



To scared to answer in case rocky mountain oysters got something to do with mountain goats testicles or something.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> lol, same idea?



I'm talking about steers, you?


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> Yes! :teeth:



EEwwwww. Eating cow balls should be illegal. I would be in favor of  legislation supporting that.


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

I knew to keep quite there for a while.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> what, no such delicacies over there?



Pulllease, he probably enjoys steak and kidney pie, with a super sized side dish of blood pudding. My mother eats that!


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> what, no such delicacies over there?



With all due respect SE you can stick your rocky mountain oysters where the sun dont shine. :teeth:


----------



## Johnney (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I've just read an article this morning that quotes Giuliana Sgrena as saying the vehicule was going at a normal speed. Who knows. One thing I don't understand...if they had been told that this convoy was on it's way...if they really thought this could be an attack, instead of shooting at the car why not just shoot at the tires or even say the engine...why shoot the hell out of the car and whoever is inside?


hey dipshit, you ever tried to shoot an auto or semi auto weapon?  even one that is mounted?  oh wait, your a frog, so i guess ive answered my own question.
they arent the most stable thing in the world to shoot.  even mounted they are loose to shoot.  you are not able to concentrait all your rounds into one place, say an engine block or tires.  it isnt like you see in the movies where you see some dick empty an M-60 into the size of a basketball at 100 meters.  it just dont happen.

fucktard


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Johnney said:
			
		

> hey dipshit, you ever tried to shoot an auto or semi auto weapon?  even one that is mounted?  oh wait, your a frog, so i guess ive answered my own question.
> they arent the most stable thing in the world to shoot.  even mounted they are loose to shoot.  you are not able to concentrait all your rounds into one place, say an engine block or tires.  it isnt like you see in the movies where you see some dick empty an M-60 into the size of a basketball at 100 meters.  it just dont happen.
> 
> fucktard


A bit late coming into the discussion you freak...
Being an american I can understand why you'd know so much about guns...you probably collect them right? 
Anyway, say what you are saying is right...then why not have other types of guns that are more stable, especially at checkpoints...like a sniper riffle or something like that. Wouldn't that make more sence dipshit? Probably not as fun as shooting the hell out of the car but hey...at least you might avoid killing people...


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

If your going to make a twat of yourself you believe in doing a good job of it dont you.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> If your going to make a twat of yourself you believe in going a good job of it dont you.


Your english right? Speak english than...
So what's wrong with what I said? so like that does not make sence?


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Your english right? Speak english than...
> So what's wrong with what I said? so like that does not make sence?


Firstly im not English.Secondly i did speak English your just not familiar with it.

Lets ignore the insults and just tell you whats wrong with your post.Started off with "Being American " so anything that followed was implied to all Americans on this board.Then you said cant you use a snipers rifle so as not to kill anyone.Figure out whats wrong with that statement yourself.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Firstly im not English.Secondly i did speak English your just not familiar with it.
> 
> Lets ignore the insults and just tell you whats wrong with your post.Started off with "Being American " so anything that followed was implied to all Americans on this board.Then you said cant you use a snipers rifle so as not to kill anyone.Figure out whats wrong with that statement yourself.


Yeah whats wrong with saying "cant you use a snipers rifle so as not to kill anyone"? Is that not possible or are you saying its offensive? 
I do believe that if there is another way to stop a vehicule than it should be used, not having the right material is not an excuse for killing innocent people. A sniper riffle or anything more stable makes more sense than what the gentleman called an "unstable" gun... Even I can come to this conclusion, what do they have military experts for nowadays?


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah whats wrong with saying "cant you use a snipers rifle so as not to kill anyone"? Is that not possible or are you saying its offensive?
> I do believe that if there is another way to stop a vehicule than it should be used, not having the right material is not an excuse for killing innocent people. A sniper riffle or anything more stable makes more sense than what the gentleman called an "unstable" gun... Even I can come to this conclusion, what do they have military experts for nowadays?



See if you understand this.When your in a combat zone as an infrantryman you look out for combat indicators.For example if you patrol down a street and more windows are open than normal there is a good chance their is an IED (Improvised explosive device) as the people do not want their windows to break.So in an area where suicide bombers are a threat driving upto you with explosive packed cars, would you not say a speeding car coming towards you in a place where people know of the threat of suicide bombers is a combat indicator.The locals all know to drive slow and keep themselves visible to the military.We used to have a saying.Its better to do 10 years than end up six feet under.
As for using a snipers rifle not to kill someone, isnt it defeating the object of firing the rifle in the first place.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> See if you understand this.When your in a combat zone as an infrantryman you look out for combat indicators.For example if you patrol down a street and more windows are open than normal there is a good chance their is an IED (Improvised explosive device) as the people do not want their windows to break.So in an area where suicide bombers are a threat driving upto you with explosive packed cars, would you not say a speeding car coming towards you in a place where people know of the threat of suicide bombers is a combat indicator.The locals all know to drive slow and keep themselves visible to the military.We used to have a saying.Its better to do 10 years than end up six feet under.
> As for using a snipers rifle not to kill someone, isnt it defeating the object of firing the rifle in the first place.


No the whole riffle thing was for when we were talking about shooting at the tires or the engine. The guy was saying thats not possible because the guns are unstable, this is when I brought the whole riffle thing...which makes more sense. Unless the aim is actually to kill everyone aboard and not just stop the car.
As for what you are saying before, I totally understant that and agree that a speeding car doesn't indicate anything positive. But like I said earlier on, the Soldiers were/or should have been told of the arrival of the Italian Convoy, and like you said...the locals know they have to drive slowly and all...these people weren't locals...I don't think they understood what was going on...


----------



## Johnney (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> A bit late coming into the discussion you freak...
> Being an american I can understand why you'd know so much about guns...you probably collect them right?
> Anyway, say what you are saying is right...then why not have other types of guns that are more stable, especially at checkpoints...like a sniper riffle or something like that. Wouldn't that make more sence dipshit? Probably not as fun as shooting the hell out of the car but hey...at least you might avoid killing people...


well no im not late coming into it, you are.  
now why in the world would someone use jsut sniper rifles?  what is the capacity of it?  now if it were your life on the line you would want as much lead to be thrown down range as possible.  but then again, being a frog you'd want as many miles distance as you could possibly have.  

and yes i do collect.  plus ive spent my time in.  so yes what im saying is right.  the stability factor is going to throw your rounds around where you want to fire,  not directly at it.  your the fucking high and mighty frog, why dont you do your home work tonight.  maybe you could recommend to the US what type of BB gun you would suggest they use.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Johnney said:
			
		

> well no im not late coming into it, you are.
> now why in the world would someone use jsut sniper rifles?  what is the capacity of it?  now if it were your life on the line you would want as much lead to be thrown down range as possible.  but then again, being a frog you'd want as many miles distance as you could possibly have.
> 
> and yes i do collect.  plus ive spent my time in.  so yes what im saying is right.  the stability factor is going to throw your rounds around where you want to fire,  not directly at it.  your the fucking high and mighty frog, why dont you do your home work tonight.  maybe you could recommend to the US what type of BB gun you would suggest they use.


The whole frog thing is lame...it's just like if I was caling you a fuckin obese american...lame...
As for the Sniper riffle what the hell is wrong with that? If you're going to start shooting at a car you might as well do it from a good distance, whats the point in shooting at a car if it's only 50 feet away, the chance is it'll get to it's target. You'll agree that a sniper riffle is stable...so shoot the fuckin tires...I know it seems to precotious but then there is a chance it could save innocent lives...no?


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> No the whole riffle thing was for when we were talking about shooting at the tires or the engine. The guy was saying thats not possible because the guns are unstable, this is when I brought the whole riffle thing...which makes more sense. Unless the aim is actually to kill everyone aboard and not just stop the car.
> As for what you are saying before, I totally understant that and agree that a speeding car doesn't indicate anything positive. But like I said earlier on, the Soldiers were/or should have been told of the arrival of the Italian Convoy, and like you said...the locals know they have to drive slowly and all...these people weren't locals...I don't think they understood what was going on...


The rifle - Enough allready.You need maximum firepower.No time to steady yourself aim fire in this situation.Shooting out the tyres will not stop the car coming at you.Remember you want it stopped immidiatly.

The car speeding - I would not have even shouted a warning to be honest.No time.If the Italians want to work the area it is upto them firstly to understand the standard operating procedures in  the area as they are the ones putting their lives at risk.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> The rifle - Enough allready.You need maximum firepower.No time to steady yourself aim fire in this situation.Shooting out the tyres will not stop the car coming at you.Remember you want it stopped immidiatly.
> 
> The car speeding - I would not have even shouted a warning to be honest.No time.If the Italians want to work the area it is upto them firstly to understand the standard operating procedures in  the area as they are the ones putting their lives at risk.



Yeah I see your point but then again maximum power isn't going to stop the car immediatly either...unless you use a rocket...but thats a bit radical
I hate this whole shoot first and ask questions later...
As for the procedures I also agree...but remember they thought that the soldiers had been informed of their arrival...they couldn't have guessed that (the soldiers say they were speeding, denied by the Italians) speeding a bit was going to get them shot at...


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

So we agree.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> So we agree.


Yeah but I still say there is time for a sniper riffle, as you can shoot from further away, meaning more time...
Do u agree that the italians might not have understood the whole stop thing because they thought the soldiers were expecting them?


----------



## musicman (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> The whole frog thing is lame...it's just like if I was caling you a fuckin obese american...lame...
> As for the Sniper riffle what the hell is wrong with that? If you're going to start shooting at a car you might as well do it from a good distance, whats the point in shooting at a car if it's only 50 feet away, the chance is it'll get to it's target. You'll agree that a sniper riffle is stable...so shoot the fuckin tires...I know it seems to precotious but then there is a chance it could save innocent lives...no?





Yeah - shoot out the tires. That'll remove the threat. Because, it might be a carload of suicidal fanatics bent on destruction, but they're sure as hell not going to keep on coming if you flatten the tires. Hell, that would seriously damage the rims - any fool knows that!


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah but I still say there is time for a sniper riffle, as you can shoot from further away, meaning more time...
> Do u agree that the italians might not have understood the whole stop thing because they thought the soldiers were expecting them?


The car could have turned into a street just 20 feet from the patrol so no i dont agree still about the snipers rifle.
The Italians by your reasoning should not have taken for granted all normal procedures would be stopped just for them.
To be honest a few of the things your saying are a bit silly and i think you know yourself.Sniper rifle ffs.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

musicman said:
			
		

> Yeah - shoot out the tires. That'll remove the threat. Because, it might be a carload of suicidal fanatics bent on destruction, but they're sure as hell not going to keep on coming if you flatten the tires. Hell, that would seriously damage the rims - any fool knows that!


I also talked of the engine earlier...tires are just an example of how maybee to stop a car instead of randomly shooting at a car...


----------



## musicman (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I hate this whole shoot first and ask questions later...





Yeah - what a drag. They ought to just talk things over...


----------



## theim (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I also talked of the engine earlier...tires are just an example of how maybee to stop a car instead of randomly shooting at a car...



The soldiers were not thinking about how to stop the car. They were thinking about how to stop the car from _blowing up_.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> The car could have turned into a street just 20 feet from the patrol so no i dont agree still about the snipers rifle.
> The Italians by your reasoning should not have taken for granted all normal procedures would be stopped just for them.
> To be honest a few of the things your saying are a bit silly and i think you know yourself.Sniper rifle ffs.


What the whole sniper riffle thing? Maybee it is silly but the guy before (also said the soldiers did try to shoot at the engine) was talking about the guns not being stable...I say than get more stable guns...


----------



## musicman (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> I also talked of the engine earlier...tires are just an example of how maybee to stop a car instead of randomly shooting at a car...





There's nothing "random" about it. Remove the threat - that's the first order of business. It's ludicrous to tell soldiers they have to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their balls. YOU try it.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

musicman said:
			
		

> There's nothing "random" about it. Remove the threat - that's the first order of business. It's ludicrous to tell soldiers they have to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their balls. YOU try it.


I totally understant that they have to protect themselves...but they knew/or should have been told that the italians were arriving...
Say you live in a rough neigborhood and you've got a gun to protect yourself. You know a friend is suppose to stop by...they come in your appartment without knocking and you hear them...you shoot...he's dead...?!

What I'm saying is that if they knew the italians were coming they should have been more careful...same goes with the italians...they should have understood the procedures better...even if they thought the soldiers knew they were coming...


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Musicman i been here a while trying to explain this.Im obviously not getting my point across.Do you want to try for a while.


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> I link incence, it smells nice! that's my two cen't if you care!  But common *sense* if you were once American would tell you that you made a funny trying to mock a englishman!


What?
What he said was just wrongly phrased...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Musicman i been here a while trying to explain this.Im obviously not getting my point across.Do you want to try for a while.


I got your point no problem...totally agree excpet that the soldiers knew/or should have known they were coming...thats all...


----------



## j07950 (Mar 6, 2005)

Anyway, gotta go...got class in the morning...


----------



## musicman (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Musicman i been here a while trying to explain this.Im obviously not getting my point across.Do you want to try for a while.





I might have to beg off, taff - it looks kind of painful - LOL!


----------



## musicman (Mar 6, 2005)

Sir Evil said:
			
		

> I link incence, it smells nice! that's my two cen't if you care!  But common *sense* if you were once American would tell you that you made a funny trying to mock a englishman!





ROFLMAO!


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

:teeth:


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Pulllease, he probably enjoys steak and kidney pie, with a super sized side dish of blood pudding. My mother eats that!


Only just saw this, you mean you dont eat these things in Canada or USA?


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Only just saw this, you mean you dont eat these things in Canada or USA?



Of course, my mother eats it! Barforamma!


----------



## taff (Mar 6, 2005)

Only asking because they dont have it on the Continent.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 6, 2005)

taff said:
			
		

> Only asking because they dont have it on the Continent.



What continent? Africa.


----------



## Johnney (Mar 6, 2005)

j07950 said:
			
		

> Yeah I see your point but then again maximum power isn't going to stop the car immediatly either...unless you use a rocket...but thats a bit radical
> *I hate this whole shoot first and ask questions later...*
> As for the procedures I also agree...but remember they thought that the soldiers had been informed of their arrival...they couldn't have guessed that (the soldiers say they were speeding, denied by the Italians) speeding a bit was going to get them shot at...


but then again its not your skin on the line so why would you care for it?


----------



## Johnney (Mar 6, 2005)

musicman said:
			
		

> I might have to beg off, taff - it looks kind of painful - LOL!


well with someone whose as anti-US as this buttmunch and his sister PE...maybe ill put my next post in crayon, write real slow, and use small words with stick figures to explain it


----------



## theim (Mar 6, 2005)

"Excuse me, sir. I notice you were speeding back there. Now uh...are you a member of a terrorist organization of any kind?...uh huh....uh huh....well Syria may call it a politcal party but that doesn't--....yeah well, so any way, just maing sure you werne't just speeding towards this checkpoint so you could---"


----------



## Working Man (Mar 6, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena, is free now.
> And today she lands on the Italian soil.
> 
> But....
> ...


   

I was not impressed with her comments regarding US troop action. IF, it is proven that the car she was in was traveling very fast approaching a US checkpoint,, then tuff shxx for her and her body guard. Sorry. Too many US soldiers, and Iraqi soldiers have been killed as speeding vehicles deliver their deadly payload of explosives. The US troops played it by the book. End of story...

Now,, if the car was not traveling too fast, but didn't stop, or cautiously approach the checkpoint. Too bad..

If the investigation proves the soldiers screwed up. Too bad. You play in a war zone there is going to be friendly fire/accidental death.. I am not going to second guess the men and women who have their asses on the line.


----------



## Bonnie (Mar 7, 2005)

Yes by all means let's read her full story in the Communist Manifesto!!!!!!



In several interviews to Italian and foreign media outlets, Ms Sgrena said she believes US troops might have deliberately opened fire on the car. 

Ms Sgrena, who works for communist paper Il Manifesto and has always been an outspoken critic of the war, argues that US authorities strongly oppose the kind of negotiations conducted to free her. 

"I cannot rule out that I was the real target," she told Rome-based daily La Repubblica. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4324445.stm

Noooo agenda here!!


----------



## Johnney (Mar 7, 2005)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Yes by all means let's read her full story in the Communist Manifesto!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



holy shit talk about a big head!  as if we even thought about her inthe first place


----------



## Bonnie (Mar 7, 2005)

Johnney said:
			
		

> holy shit talk about a big head!  as if we even thought about her inthe first place



LOL Well Johnny they like to think the world revolves around their paranoia and ideals.


----------



## sitarro (Mar 7, 2005)

As i said on page 3 of this thread , if the Americans wanted her dead , there would not be a trace of the car or her . . . for that matter , she could have been recaptured and beheaded in a staged execution . That would have been much more valuable for America's cause than what was actually done (defence of a checkpoint from a possible car bomb by the heroic American liberators of Iraqi citizens).
 This woman is a communist , Democracy is communism's worst threat , Iraq's war has been about bringing Democracy to the Middle East. . . it doesn't take a NASA scientist to figure out whose agenda is being pushed here . I still wouldn't doubt that the entire kidnapping was staged in order to get money delivered to the terrorist insurgents . :finger: her.


----------



## krisy (Mar 7, 2005)

sitarro said:
			
		

> As i said on page 3 of this thread , if the Americans wanted her dead , there would not be a trace of the car or her . . . for that matter , she could have been recaptured and beheaded in a staged execution . That would have been much more valuable for America's cause than what was actually done (defence of a checkpoint from a possible car bomb by the heroic American liberators of Iraqi citizens).
> This woman is a communist , Democracy is communism's worst threat , Iraq's war has been about bringing Democracy to the Middle East. . . it doesn't take a NASA scientist to figure out whose agenda is being pushed here . I still wouldn't doubt that the entire kidnapping was staged in order to get money delivered to the terrorist insurgents . :finger: her.




Yes,because if it was set up,or ransom was payed for her,then all the more reason to believe the car they were driving was speeding in order to get by U.S. soldiers quickly. We shouldn't even have to defend them,everyone in the media assumes it is their fault-as usual. If they did pay ransom,I guess it is their business,but if they didn't tell the U.S. what was going on,forget what they have to say.


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 8, 2005)

Sorry for beeing late.

first : 



> 1.Dont ever place French wooses on a par with their British counterparts.
> 
> 2.What makes you think the French could do a better job.Rememeber those troops in Iraq have been in a combat situation for months which is better than any training in the world.
> 
> 3.French troops are Gay.



For the 1 and 3, no comment, you know my thoughts.

For the 2 : I believe that the US troops who shot were young soldiers, in Iraq since a few time, so the "combat situation" is not what you think, guy.

And : 

The US HQ knew that an italian convoy was driven on this way. A US officer was waiting it at the Airport, so.... What the fuck ? Why did these soldiers a such thing ? bad communication between the US HQ and the troops stationned in the city.

And : what about the US sergeant who kill in 48 hours 40 civilians at a checkpoint ?
What was he doing ? Trying to win a "live counter strike game" ? well, nice score, but a little bit stupid, no ? Killing 40 civilians in only 2 days, it is not an error, it is warcrime.

I know that the US HQ, maybe the Pentagon, punished him, but anyway, it would not make back the dead civilians.

This sergeant's problerm is like the italian convoy shot, it show the same problems.


----------



## sitarro (Mar 8, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Sorry for beeing late.
> 
> first :
> 
> ...



 What anti American rag are you reading? Where do you get these stories or the details ? Why would you believe an admitted communist (America Hater) over U.S. soldiers ? If the Americans wanted her dead , why isn't she? Why would the Americans care if the Italian communist want to set themselves up for continued kidnappings , except that it is an obvious attempt to funnel money to the anti American , anti Iraqi democracy asswipes . What is the name of the fictional sergeant who supposedly gunned down 40 civilians in 2 days? Where did you get this story ? What would anyone in France know about the war in Iraq? I know you can tell us about moldy cheese and smelly armpits but what do you know about a country(The United States) that voluntarily goes across the world to liberate 2 countries ? How about the conduct of France in The Ivory Coast?


----------



## Johnney (Mar 8, 2005)

sitarro said:
			
		

> What anti American rag are you reading? Where do you get these stories or the details ? *Why would you believe an admitted communist (America Hater) over U.S. soldiers ? *If the Americans wanted her dead , why isn't she? Why would the Americans care if the Italian communist want to set themselves up for continued kidnappings , except that it is an obvious attempt to funnel money to the anti American , anti Iraqi democracy asswipes . What is the name of the fictional sergeant who supposedly gunned down 40 civilians in 2 days? Where did you get this story ? What would anyone in France know about the war in Iraq? I know you can tell us about moldy cheese and smelly armpits but what do you know about a country(The United States) that voluntarily goes across the world to liberate 2 countries ? How about the conduct of France in The Ivory Coast?


do yo even have to ask this one?
lol


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 9, 2005)

Sitarro, i never meant and thought that the US soldiers shot on purpose on the italian convoy. I think thay did an enormaous mistake, but too enormous to be forgiven.
I only say that a professionnal army of a coutry like USA should care about the things when this army has a peace job.

The US soldiers shot on the convoy. Sorry if you believed that I thouht the US shot because it was an hostage. I only give some things who shows that some details are disturbing, to not excuse the shooting soldiers. I don't think they shot becasue she wasa commie, but it is again a "collateral dammage"...

For the sergeant, sorry, don't have a name, but I heard that the Pentagon had punish him - it is the less they could do - .

If I pist such things, it is only to show my suprise about the US troops's behavior in Iraq.
They would do bad blue helmets.
Nothing else.

So don't take too quickly your conclusions.




> Don't event talk about crimes with the clown that you have leading your country your arrogant asshole



I'm not arrogant, dear.

And even if I don't approve all the decisions of Jacques Chirac, hye didn't committed crimes, so what the fuck ?


Why, when somebody post here some thing against some US behaviors or decisions, this person is taken as "anti american" ?

You remind me some Chinese In heard ; they said that there were no problem in their country, and when somedbody tried to have a discussion with them about sensible subjects, these Chinses insulted their contradictors.


----------



## krisy (Mar 9, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Sitarro, i never meant and thought that the US soldiers shot on purpose on the italian convoy. I think thay did an enormaous mistake, but too enormous to be forgiven.
> I only say that a professionnal army of a coutry like USA should care about the things when this army has a peace job.
> 
> The US soldiers shot on the convoy. Sorry if you believed that I thouht the US shot because it was an hostage. I only give some things who shows that some details are disturbing, to not excuse the shooting soldiers. I don't think they shot becasue she wasa commie, but it is again a "collateral dammage"...
> ...



padisha,you ,along with the rest of the world assume it was the U.S.'s fault. Has an investigation been completed-NO!!!I am sick and tired of the world always ASSuming it is the U.S.'s fault. How do you know who is telling the truth? And what kind of behavior are you talking about when you say you are suprised at the behavior of U.S. troops in Iraq?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 9, 2005)

Maybe i just dont know enough about the story, but i have to ask this.

Since where are people who get held hostage heros?


----------



## sitarro (Mar 9, 2005)

Again I have to ask , if the United States cared enough to want that communist c**t dead , why is she speaking to the world right now ? If the soldiers rained gunfire on that car why is she and her driver still breathing the stale air in Europe ? This dumb ass wanted to go into a war zone to report to her paper , she is the one that is responcible for what happened to her . 
 I still haven't heard her say one word about her captors , you know the ones that threatened to rip off her head .


----------



## no1tovote4 (Mar 9, 2005)

sitarro said:
			
		

> Again I have to ask , if the United States cared enough to want that communist c**t dead , why is she speaking to the world right now ? If the soldiers rained gunfire on that car why is she and her driver still breathing the stale air in Europe ? This dumb ass wanted to go into a war zone to report to her paper , she is the one that is responcible for what happened to her .
> I still haven't heard her say one word about her captors , you know the ones that threatened to rip off her head .



Often people begin to associate with their kidnappers in hostage situations, they have a hard time after leaving seeing them as the criminals.  Give it time, about the same time when the world forgets the lady, and she will realize that the bad guys were not the US soldiers.  Too bad she will never admit it, don't want to say anything good about the US if you can help it ya know.

She wanted to find something bad to report about the US.  We accidentally supplied it at the end of her adventure.

Clearly if we had actually wanted her dead, they would all be dead.  The whole idea of not complying with a US roadblock is inane, then to attempt to blame it no the US as if we had done that on purpose is clear idiocy.


----------



## Bonnie (Mar 9, 2005)

padisha emperor


> And even if I don't approve all the decisions of Jacques Chirac, hye didn't committed crimes, so what the fuck ?



http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/17341/view?viewtype




> French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.
> 
> Analysis
> 
> ...



"Collateral damage" comes in all shapes and sizes


----------



## no1tovote4 (Mar 9, 2005)

Was this the story you linked to?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846787/posts


----------



## Bonnie (Mar 9, 2005)

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Was this the story you linked to?
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846787/posts



A little different but equally as interesting.


----------



## Bonnie (Mar 9, 2005)

Italy's Ransom 
Rome adopts a policy of deliberately aiding terrorism. 

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST 



> Americans join Italians in mourning the death of Italian secret service officer Nicola Calipari, whose funeral was held in Rome on Monday. Agent Calipari died a hero last Friday, reportedly using his body to shield freed journalist/hostage Giuliana Sgrena from gunfire as their car approached American troops near Baghdad Airport. So perhaps Ms. Sgrena will also shed a tear for the Americans and Iraqis who will die because of the ransom that was paid for her release.
> 
> So far, all the world's moral anger has focused on the claim that U.S. soldiers were reckless, or even tried to "assassinate" her, as Ms. Sgrena's newspaper, the communist Il Manifesto, put it. But her claims in some interviews that her car was moving slowly and cautiously are contradicted by, well, Ms. Sgrena.
> 
> Her own account of the fateful journey, published Sunday, has them traveling so fast they were "losing control" and laughing about what an irony it would be if they had an accident after all that had happened. In other words, they probably looked like a suicide car bomber to a scared American solider who had to make a split-second decision at night. (The military declines to give figures on car bombs specifically for operational security reasons. But "explosive devices" of various kinds are by far the leading killers in Iraq, accounting for close to half of all deaths from hostile fire, and nearly twice as many as gunshot wounds.)



http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006392


----------



## Merlin1047 (Mar 9, 2005)

Damn, I get sick of listening to you Euroweenies whine.

They didn't need to shoot.

They should have shot the tires.

They should have shot the engine.

Give me a break - here's a "they should have" that applies to the Italians in the vehicle - THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED.

What you two snivelers seem to forget is that these soldiers are in a WAR ZONE where people try to kill them on a regular and recurring basis.  If there is a car coming at you which refuses to obey repeated commands to stop, you have to assume that it's loaded with explosives and the occupants are intent on taking you out.

Given that situation, you don't worry about shooting the tires, or the engine, or the damn bumper stickers.  You shoot the asshole driving the thing.  And if it turns out that there were no weapons and no explosives, then you have to ask yourself why they refused to stop.  Either way, they're just as dead and either way that's tough cookies.  Our troops have the right to defend themselves and they don't have to take unnecessary risks with their lives aiming for the tires of a vehicle coming at them.

Seems to me that the Italians approaching a military checkpoint should be smart enough to comply with commands to stop.  So make all the excuses you want, but the troops did the right thing considering they are in Iraq and not in downtown Topeka Kansas.


----------



## sitarro (Mar 9, 2005)

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> Damn, I get sick of listening to you Euroweenies whine.
> 
> They didn't need to shoot.
> 
> ...



 Exactly Merlin ,
 Even when it appears that our guys have shot up civilians it is usually much more complex than that .The lowlifes that we are fighting are known to take families hostage and force the father and mother to drive car bombs into check points . I will back anything our troops feel a need to do , I'm not there ,they are . My life isn't on the line , their's is . I want them to come back the way they left to the hero's welcome they deserve . . .as soon as possible . They deserve the benefit of the doubt.
 Bonnie , 
 That Opinion Journal piece sure said a mouthful . . . thanks . I hadn't heard about what she had said about the speeding so fast that they almost lost control .


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 11, 2005)

> padisha,you ,along with the rest of the world assume it was the U.S.'s fault. Has an investigation been completed-NO!!!I am sick and tired of the world always ASSuming it is the U.S.'s fault. How do you know who is telling the truth? And what kind of behavior are you talking about when you say you are suprised at the behavior of U.S. troops in Iraq?



The death of Nicola Calipari sis the US's fault. yes.
It won't be the fault of the Brits, of the French of the Chinese.... Assume your acts. (here, your means USA  )

What kind of behavior ?
As I said, The Us amry is a professional army, maybe not the first in quality, but really good. Except for some young soldiers training, but that's not the point here.
As a professional and #1 world army, the US army should have a better behavior when it does a peace operation.
That's what i meant.




> This dumb ass wanted to go into a war zone to report to her paper , she is the one that is responcible for what happened to her .


Sitarro, I disagree with you here.

She is not a dumb ass because she decided to go to Iraq.
She is a journalist, so, her job is to go in the sensible places of the wolrd to report the news.
If people follow your mind, and don't go in the troubles places, the news would be : "nothing new, everything is good in the best wolrd...."
A journalist HAVE TO be in the good place, at the good time. Iraq is the good place, now, because there are a lot of things here.
Would you critisize the war reporter, like the WWII journalists, or photographers, like Robert Cappa ?

She is responsible of her life, of course, but not of Nicola Calipari's one. But US soldiers are responsible of his death.



> but the troops did the right thing considering they are in Iraq and not in downtown Topeka Kansas.



Merlin, sure, Iraq is more dangerous than USA - although... - .

But how can you explain the fact that the US troops kill more civilians that other army in peace operation ? Like the blue helmet in ex-Yugoslavja ?

If the same situation would happen between Iraqis troops shooting on US convoy, you'ld scream "it is scandalous !!!"


----------



## krisy (Mar 11, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> The death of Nicola Calipari sis the US's fault. yes.
> It won't be the fault of the Brits, of the French of the Chinese.... Assume your acts. (here, your means USA  )
> 
> What kind of behavior ?
> ...



padisha,I still do not accept this was the U.S.'s fault-the media has made it appear that way. It's all in how they FIRST report it-that is what sticks in your head.

Also,comparing the journalists today with the journalists of WW2 is not really going to work. The journalists back then were more pro troops and pro country and knew that those men were fighting for their right to free speech.


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 12, 2005)

Maybe ther WWII journaist were better than the today's reporter, but hat is not the problem : the Journalists HAVE TO go in the hot places, where there is action.


Not the fault of the USA ?

I admit of course that the soldiers are stressed by a war operation, and they're more nervous.

but, upon the car of the italian convoy, there were a lot of bullets impacts. Not 10, not 20, but 500.....

A M-16 magasine can hold 30 bullets.

So, about 17 M-16 magasines...It is a lot, to stop a car, no ?


And an other things : I didn't see feeling of excuse here... You insult the italian hostage, you insult me, but it is an american bullet shoted by an american rifle who kill N. Calipari.
At least, think to his family and be sorry.


----------



## Annie (Mar 12, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Maybe ther WWII journaist were better than the today's reporter, but hat is not the problem : the Journalists HAVE TO go in the hot places, where there is action.
> 
> 
> Not the fault of the USA ?
> ...



Hello our little playfroggy. Check this out, lots of links for you and some interesting photos also. Why is it do you think, that the Italians are having problems with what she says, what was done regarding informing the military? Oh I know, they are afraid of our: 





			
				Padisha said:
			
		

> The Us amry is a professional army, maybe not the first in quality, but really good.



http://nomayo.mu.nu/archives/070597.php



> If a picture is worth a thousand words then the 5 photos above that I got at Captain's Quarters speak volumes about the truth. The car in the photos is the one that was carrying Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena when it came under fire approaching a checkpoint on the road to Bagdad Airport. This is the car that Sgerna described as coming under a hail of gunfire from U.S. Marines. This is the car at which Sgrena alleges the Marines fired 300-400 rounds.
> 
> So what do these pictures say?
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolfe (Mar 12, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> Maybe ther WWII journaist were better than the today's reporter, but hat is not the problem : the Journalists HAVE TO go in the hot places, where there is action.
> 
> 
> Not the fault of the USA ?
> ...



Hey Padisha,
I am reminded of the saying when I think of the Italian shot by the Americans....

SHIT HAPPENS

get over it


----------



## krisy (Mar 12, 2005)

padisha,if you go and read Kathianne's thread in war on terror about Ms. Sgrena,you will see that it has been confirmed the U.S. troops knew nothing of this mission. An  Italian witness backs this up. The Italian government should have let us know. That is all the proof you should need.


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 12, 2005)

Kathianne, do you dare to call this quote a serious link - i will play the same game as you -  ?

Look at this text : it is obviously not objective.




> Hey Padisha,
> I am reminded of the saying when I think of the Italian shot by the Americans....
> 
> SHIT HAPPENS
> ...



yes, shit happens...
but you seems to see it as a normal thing.

Is it normal that professional soldiers of the army considered as the #1 army of the world, shot and kill so many civilians, italian guy, so many english soldiers, and so many US soldiers ?

I believe that since the Vietnam, 1/6 of the US casualties at war are provoked by US troops.

It is a lot, isn't it ?


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 12, 2005)

You are the moderator, yes, but it doesn't give to you the right to insult me.


Would you deny that the US troops did and do lots of "collateral dammages" ?


----------



## sitarro (Mar 12, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Hello our little playfroggy. Check this out, lots of links for you and some interesting photos also. Why is it do you think, that the Italians are having problems with what she says, what was done regarding informing the military? Oh I know, they are afraid of our:
> 
> http://nomayo.mu.nu/archives/070597.php



 Once again the Queen of Research comes through with excellent results . Yes pictures are worth thousands of words and you got them Kathianne. . . thanks .
 I'm sure Padish will want to believe that these were taken in America or that they have had the 500 bullet holes removed in Photoshop . The fact is the "reporter" lied about this too .That little shitty car would look like moldy old swiss cheese if even 100 shots had hit it . Of course the euros report that more than 500 shot were fired by our incompetent Army guys . I noticed from the photos that just the front tire and the drivers window were shot out , that looks pretty competent to me. They could have just hit it with an RPG and been done with it .
 Padisha , 
 I still believe that reporter is a dumbass . She has an agenda (communism) that she wants to push and decided to go to Iraq to push it . She could have reported on anything else or from anywhere else , if you aren't going to tell the truth you can do it from an overpriced hotel room in Paris . I think she went there to help her friends , the anti democracy terrorist . She was successful . She got her "captors" 6 million euros , got a brave Italian secret service guy killed and was able to blame it all on the Americans . . . perfect . I'm only surprised that she didn't take Dan Rather with her  .


----------



## Said1 (Mar 12, 2005)

PE, you have not commented on the pictures. What think you?


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 13, 2005)

If it is the real italian car, then, i don't see 500 bullets impacts.


Then, I don't know if it is the real car. It could be a fake, no ? 


but if you show me prooves that it is Nicola Calipari's car, then, I'll admit that I don't see at all these 500 impacts.

But : you are always discutting about my links, and want always serious prooves, and that's not bad.

So, you can understand that I would not believe hard as a rock this picture, without a minimum of prooves  


SE : I think it is Jim who answer to my messages, more than you, but thank you for you answer.

You know that I don't have bad feelings with you or other board's users.
It is more a bad comprehension.


----------



## Annie (Mar 13, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> If it is the real italian car, then, i don't see 500 bullets impacts.
> 
> 
> Then, I don't know if it is the real car. It could be a fake, no ?


 No. 




> but if you show me prooves that it is Nicola Calipari's car, then, I'll admit that I don't see at all these 500 impacts.


 What would you believe that doesn't fit into your 'vision?'



> But : you are always discutting about my links, and want always serious prooves, and that's not bad.
> 
> So, you can understand that I would not believe hard as a rock this picture, without a minimum of prooves


 Here's the difference PE, we are NOT going to French sites where we are not too sure of the language, much less agendas of 'out of the mainstream.' You try doing that and fail.




> SE : I think it is Jim who answer to my messages, more than you, but thank you for you answer.
> 
> You know that I don't have bad feelings with you or other board's users.
> It is more a bad comprehension.


 Yes PE, we know you love all of us US citizens. 

Take a look at what Italy is doing now regarding ransoms and the concessions they are making regarding the 'incident.' (WOT thread). Till later,


----------



## Annie (Mar 13, 2005)

Whoops another little nugget from Italy:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1675476,00.html



> Calipari 'kept US in the dark'
> 12/03/2005 22:31  - (SA)
> 
> Rome - *US authorities in Iraq were kept in the dark about an Italian operation to free a kidnapped journalist which ended in debacle with an intelligence officer killed by US troops, an Italian general was quoted on Saturday as saying.*
> ...


----------



## sitarro (Mar 13, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Whoops another little nugget from Italy:
> 
> http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1675476,00.html



 Sounds like Italy has their own Michael Moore . She is not only a dumbass and a liar . . . she is a jerk also.


----------



## Annie (Mar 13, 2005)

Yup, just like MM she hates America. I guess she didn't think anyone would notice...


----------



## nosarcasm (Mar 13, 2005)

I am glad finally the Italian government told her to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Annie (Mar 13, 2005)

nosarcasm said:
			
		

> I am glad finally the Italian government told her to shut the fuck up.


 I agree!


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 18, 2005)

be quiet, I only said that jimnyc spoke a lot with me at the beginning, I never said that you didn't, you didn't read my previous post.
I thank you

If you shoot a french hostage, here you'ld have problems.


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 18, 2005)

padisha emperor said:
			
		

> be quiet, I only said that jimnyc spoke a lot with me at the beginning, I never said that you didn't, you didn't read my previous post.
> I thank you
> 
> If you shoot a french hostage, here you'ld have problems.




Like what?-----no champagne for a month?


----------



## padisha emperor (Mar 18, 2005)

and after, you dare to say that the french are arrogant...


----------

