Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Giuliana Sgrena

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Giuliana Sgrena



    "Italian intelligence decided to free Sgrena paying a sum to the kidnappers without informing American colleagues in Iraq who, if they had known about this, would have had to oppose it, to have impeded the operation," sources said. "If this was the case, it could explain why American intelligence had not informed the American military commands about the operation and thus the patrol did not expect the car with the Italians."

    it's unbelievable to me that the italians (especially the communist journalist) are trying to take the high ground in this. the 6 million euros they spent for Sgrena's release are going to be used to kill people. they decided not to tell the americans about the operation, because they knew that (for some reason) the americans would object. and then they're indignant when their truck, which the american soldiers had no information about, was fired on, by people who have learned to stay alive by firing on mysterious trucks.

    and Sgrena's version of events is even more ridiculous. instead of the obvious scenario above, we're supposed to believe, with no proof whatsoever, that the evil american troops decided to have this woman killed, after the deal was already done, just out of spite. and when that didn't work, they said, to hell with it, just let her go back to italy.

    the real kicker is that unfortunate accidents happen all the time, but this one is getting more press than the fact that the italians are GIVING CASH TO TERRORISTS.

  • #2
    Well, I guess they don't have that not negotiating thing going like we do...
    practice wu de

    Comment


    • #3
      News on this event are varying.
      It seems that the Italian government has paid ransom and that it wasn’t for the first time. According to a report the Italian government has already paid 15 million dollars to terrorists thus to liberate Italian citizens from captivity. This incident is now being used by some people to criticize the approach of the American soldiers. But aren’t they exposed to an enormous pressure in Iraq, what the events of the last weeks and even months have shown. I don’t want to believe that they are just some trigger-happy cowboys, who are just shooting on every aim moving. Fact is that they become every single day the target of those who, in their fanatical illusion, kill hundreds and thousands of innocents and who btw are just a ticking time bomb. I think it’s easy to lay in on someone when sitting comfortably in a chair in an office far away from the events.
      Let’s face the fact, when the Italian government actually pays ransom for hostages, then they made their own compatriots in Iraq targets of the terrorist movements. Their own government released them for hunting to the terrorists. Guess the Italian government disgraced themselves with this action.
      Don’t take life too serious, as you won’t get out of it alive anyway.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well I don't think it makes a lot of difference that they paid a ransom.. the end result is they got their citizen back alive (minus the intell. guy) which is more than can be said of many previous hostages. A few million paid to what may or may not be terrorists (quite likely to be nothing more than criminals otherwise they'd have slit her throat no matter what) is a drop in the ocean.. money is not something these guys are short of.. they make plenty from drugs, people trafficing, arms deals, donations through 'charities' etc etc.

        Think how much money the US has spent on this war so far.. billions.. of which many millions probably ended up in the hands of unsavoury characters anyway.. so a few million paid in ransom is nothing.. its not the first time in history and it wont be the last.. anyway the italians are free to do whatever they want or need to protect their people, same as any other nation and good on them for doing so! If I was a hostage I'd want my govt. to do everything possible with no restrictions whether it be paying a ransom or sending in the SAS to kick some ass! The end DOES justify the means..

        As for being shot at by US troops.. well shit happens in war, its quite likely they were a bit trigger happy but can't really blame them for that, it is a dangerous country. I don't think you can blame italy for not letting them know in advance.. I mean there are millions of people driving around iraq every day without co-ordinating anything with the US military and I presume troops are not firing at them all.. if they are then there is a serious issue with some US troops on the ground that needs to be dealt with!

        Basically I would say its just a case of bad luck and nervous troops.

        Comment


        • #5
          If no one ever gave ransom to terrorists they wouldn't pull the kidnapping crap. Becuase they would know they aren't getting paid by doing it. Bottom line.

          Never give in to these animals.

          These countries really make me laugh.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mortal
            These countries really make me laugh.
            And if you were kidnapped would you still laugh? Would you really give a shit that your govt. paid a ransom to save your ass or would you be happy to have your head cut off with a kitchen knife for the sake of a principle?

            How many americans and brits and others were butchered when no ransom was paid? Although as I've said terrorists there are more likely to kill you no matter what.. they are not motivated by money.. for example see how many people from nepal were kidnapped and beheaded - what kind of a ransom did their kidnappers expect from nepal?? Its hardly a rich country and nepali rupees don't go far!

            Lets not forget also that many of these terrorists were trained and financed by the CIA and others when it suited the powers that be to use them..

            Besides which just coz they pay a ransom today does not mean those guys will have a long and happy life.. its only a matter of time before they get aquainted with the business end of a missile or such like.. (hopefully)

            Comment


            • #7
              If I was captured I would want the government to say screw off. Let them kill me. At least I would die like a man then live as an appeaser to terrorist scum.

              Never give in to terroists. Ever.

              If I were a terrorist I would kidnap Italians and charge high ransoms.
              At least you know your going to get paid.

              So your position is pay the terrorists or give in to what ever demands they have for one persons life?

              Glad your not in charge. lolo

              Comment


              • #8
                My position is to do what you need to do to save your people, and then do what you can to get the ****ers once your people are safe..

                If you have intel and know where your people are then great, send in a team to get them out.. thats what special forces are trained for and are usually quite good at.. but if you don't know where they are or a military rescue is just not feasable for whatever reason then look for other options.. if money is one then so be it, whatever works.

                As I said.. these terrorists don't give a damn about your money, they do it for various reasons but the primary one being to create 'terror' hence the name.. in this case money got her out which implies that they were criminals rather than terrorists.. often the two are interchangable to a certain extent but thats another matter.

                Its a fact that kidnapping has a long history in the middle east.. starting long before berlusconi was around to pay ransoms and its not uncommon for hostages to be kept for many many years to be used for whatever suits the kidnappers..


                At least I would die like a man
                Somehow I doubt being 'manly' would be foremost in your mind as the blunt knife saws into your neck.. the self preservation instinct is more likely, but whatever.. either way you would still be dead which does you no good. You 'dying like a man' wont change a thing, you're just a pawn and there is no shortage of psychos willing to kill people in the name of whatever cause they take to. Better to live to fight another day as they say. In fact better simply to not be there at all.. iraq is not a place for foreign civilians.. leave the 'dying like a man' to people that get paid for it.. ie. the military.

                At the end of the day the italian pm does not answer to bush or the american people, he answers to his people and bringing hostages home alive makes for happy voters..

                Comment


                • #9
                  again. so your saying give in to the terrists to appease the voters? ok

                  You know who I respect the Italian hostage that said this is how an italian dies. Thats a real man, not some *****.


                  by your logic if they are goin to kill them anyway why pay these animals?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mortal
                    again. so your saying give in to the terrists to appease the voters? ok
                    No, thats not what I am saying that is simply the way the world works.. governments come and go and politicians generally care more about votes and popularity than anything else.. not saying its a good thing, just being realistic.


                    You know who I respect the Italian hostage that said this is how an italian dies. Thats a real man, not some *****.
                    Anyone who puts his or her life on the line for others deserves respect, macho nonsense aside, but being dead aint no fun and there's no coming back from it.

                    by your logic if they are goin to kill them anyway why pay these animals?
                    Not at all, you have misunderstood me completely.. read it again..

                    First of all I said there is a difference between criminals and terrorists.. the former would probably take the money, as that is their aim, and release the hostage..

                    The latter will kill the hostage without a second thought as terror is their aim, sending beheading videos to al-jazeera and eventually onto the net for all the world to see thus spreading the terror and shock far beyond their little corner of the desert.. they are trying to influence you and other people around the world.. they are manipulating public opinion.. they are in fact playing the votes game too.. they know that the more americans or brits that are butchered in the most horrific way, the more people back home will turn against bush or whoever they perceive as being responsible for going into iraq or wherever.. of course the risk exists that opinion could swing the other way too.. shock could lead to outrage and a huge rise in demand for military action of some kind.. but the sad fact is the terrorists win both ways.. terror is what they live for.

                    So basically you need to know WHO you are dealing with in order to know HOW to deal with them or at least what options may be available for dealing with them.

                    Second I said if you have intel and a military option exists then by all means go for it, I'm certainly in favour of that.. however if you are dealing with common criminals then going in like rambo with guns blazing is likely to get not only the hostage killed but also soldiers involved in the rescue.. if a 'simple' hostage negotiation and payoff of some kind gets the hostage out then go for it.. there's nothing stopping you from killing or arresting the criminals afterwards once your hostage has been freed.

                    Think about it.. if these are criminals, it makes little difference (besides logistical difficulties) that it is in iraq.. if some nutter kidnapped someone in new york what would you do? Say "oh **** em" and forget about it coz on principle you 'don't deal with nutters'? Or would you send in police hostage negotiaters and try to make a deal to free the hostage AND hopefully try to catch the nutter in the process?

                    At the end of the day you will pay a price no matter which way you choose to deal with terrorists or criminals.. either in money or blood or both.. and regardless of which option you choose there will ALWAYS be other kidnappings or acts of terror of one kind or another.. people NEVER learn..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "No, thats not what I am saying that is simply the way the world works.. governments come and go and politicians generally care more about votes and popularity than anything else.. not saying its a good thing, just being realistic."

                      There you go again.

                      Bottom line is if you were presidnt you would send millions of dollars to earn votes from liberal support base. Who in this country is the minority, thank God.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mortal
                        "No, thats not what I am saying that is simply the way the world works.. governments come and go and politicians generally care more about votes and popularity than anything else.. not saying its a good thing, just being realistic."

                        There you go again.

                        Bottom line is if you were presidnt you would send millions of dollars to earn votes from liberal support base. Who in this country is the minority, thank God.
                        There YOU go again.. I didn't say *I* would want to earn votes like that or that I approve of it, I just said that is the way it is.. if you think any politican no matter what side of the political spectrum from bush to clinton to blair to putin to berlusconi or any other major politician does not place votes and popularity way up high on their priority list then you are sadly mistaken..

                        Just how many hundreds of millions are spent buying votes in every election in america do you think? How much did bush and the republican party spend on boosting his popularity to ensure his re-election? How much did the democrats blow on their failed attempt? Everything from massive tv campaigns to investing in various popular projects.. even in fact going to war in iraq.. its a well known and often used ploy by politicians to use war as a domestic political tool.. war brings the nation together behind their leader and as long as the war goes well that leader can be assured of the best ratings.. its a ploy that maggie thatcher used to great effect when going to war against argentina to protect a few tiny and barely habitable islands on the other side of the world that nobody in england had even heard of beforehand and probably still couldn't pinpoint on a map.. she became the fearless leader, defending british subjects no matter where in the world, from foreign invaders.. the great british nation went to war lead by the iron maiden.. she was the new churchill for a while.. you simply couldn't buy that kind of popularity!

                        As I am not a president, nor do I plan to be I do not have to worry about spending millions to earn votes but one thing for sure is that I am not quite what you might call a liberal.. I am simply a realist (or perhaps a cynic).. I favoured the war in iraq as saddam needed to be removed.. wmd or no wmd.. the regimes in syria, iran and north korea also need to be 'dealt with' one way or another however I think they will be rather more difficult to win over militarily.. fortunately there is more than one way to skin a cat.. look at what is happening to syria in lebanon now for example.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          THERE YOU GO AGAIN! I CAN SCREAM LOUDER.

                          I started debating your point about paying off terrorists. That is it. I don't care about your other beleifs or rants.

                          If Bush wanted votes and would do anything for them he would have pulled out when millions of people protested the war.

                          We do not buy votes in the US. That is liberal nonsense. They promote themselves, but that is not buying. If they were buying I never got money for voting for Bush. So saying that makes you look a little stupid. Try to keep that opinion to your self.

                          I agree with you about the war.

                          Don't get your panties in such a bunch. Geez.

                          Would you pay off every terrorist who takes hostages if you were prez yes or no?
                          I think this is the third time I have asked this. Please answer the question.

                          I am only seeking a YES OR NO answer. I don't care about your rantings.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            firbolg, it's italy's right to do whatever it takes to protect their citizens. that doesn't make it the right thing to do. and just because you and i would want our governments to pay the ransom and protect us, doesn't mean that's the right thing to do, either.

                            saying that these people were criminals and not terrorists is just a denial of reality. if someone did this in new york, yes, it would be a simple criminal act. but new york doesn't have suicide bombings and machine gun battles every day. iraq is in the middle of an insurgency, and when you see someone kidnapping foreign journalists and demanding ransom from governments, that's not in remotely the same ballpark as 'criminal'.

                            you seem to think that they're "criminals" instead of "terrorists" because they let her live. you expect terrorists to do things in some intrinsically different way than run-of-the-mill criminals. the thing is, they don't. they act exactly like common criminals - drug dealing, extortion, smuggling - up to the point where they blow themselves up. counterterrorist organizations like the SAS learned that the hard way a long time ago.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don't think you can blame italy for not letting them know in advance.. I mean there are millions of people driving around iraq every day without co-ordinating anything with the US military and I presume troops are not firing at them all
                              they don't fire on them because they stop at checkpoints. Sgrena's version is that there were no signals to slow down, the U.S. version is that they were signaled to slow down and just didn't.

                              to swallow Sgrena's version, you have to believe that there were troops at the checkpoint that had no intention of actually making cars stop at the checkpoint, and instead, just decided to randomly fire on cars from time to time. either that, or that the U.S. was deliberately trying to kill her, for which there is no proof or coherent motive. when you consider this along with the fact that the italians were obviously trying to slip one past U.S. intelligence, it makes it pretty clear (in my mind) whose fault this was.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X