Reply #142: I 'm inclined to agree [View All]

[Frederik]

about the benefit of the doubt, even under these unusual circumstances. But your comment, "since when would murderers need to explain anything", well, if they were members of the US military they certainly would have a lot of 'splainin to do if she was found shot through the head at close range? And I've speculated (just speculating) about the possibility that the troops in question were simply (deliberatly) not told that an Italian vehicle would pass them. That still doesn't explain the seemingly unprovoked attack from an armoured vehicle which was not at a checkpoint.

I am in no way suggesting that the troops acted alone, shooting at an Italian journalist that they had been told to let pass. THAT is ridiculous. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Either it's a miscommunication (screw-up), or they were deliberately not told that the Italians were coming, or they were some kind of "assassination patrol" (I know, sounds corny but Rumsfeld has just initiated such a force; it's called P2OG. I agree that they failed miserably if that was indeed what it was).

I would go with the screw-up explanation as default option, but there just doesn't seem to have been any reason at all to open fire, if we are to believe the journalist's account. It should certainly be interesting to hear the soldiers' account of what happened.