This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All of this discussion is pointless because the vehicle was stupidly targeted by U.S. forces on purpose because Al-Qaeda tricked them into it. Al-Qaeda used the fearfulness and trigger-happy qualities of the soldiers against them by reporting that her vehicle had an ied in it, the U.S. took the bait. They were scared to admit being duped and voila, conspiracy theories abound but alas it is the simple answer [ [1]]. If the car were going 1kph or 100 mph it was up against a soldier's fears which have no limits or reasonability! BTW Pier, you nailed it on all three! Pier said-->> Pier Scolari said "I hope the Italian government does something because either this was an ambush, as I think, or we are dealing with imbeciles or terrorized kids who shoot at anyone". unsigned comment added by |talk]]) 06:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there is too large overlapping in the pages of Giuliana Sgrena, Nicola Calipari and Mario Lozano about the incident. I think a specific article is in order, to integrate all the information in one place (and possibly orderly so). Information in those three articles would then be transfered here, leaving a link and possibly a short resume in the original pages, specific to the role of each character. Any thoughts? -- Orzetto 21:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that this suggestion is being implemented. I don't see where it was discussed, and consensus reached that it was a good idea. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The article currently says that the Americans, manning the roadblock, had successfully turned away two other vehicles before the arrival of the Italian's car. I read the report myself. What's going on? I read that they had turned back dozens of vehicles. I read that they had to fire warning shots in order to get half a dozen of those vehicles to stop. I read that several of those other vehicles had to screech their brakes, and leave skid marks, to stop in time.
The article does not make clear that the gunner was also tasked with aiming the hand-held floodlight -- a recipe for disaster.
The article says that Americans "followed procedure". Doesn't the American report say that the Americans had to receive on the job training from the previous unit, because the procedure for manning these roadblock was inadequately documented? I'd like to suggest that to say the Americans "followed procedure" gives the misleading impression that the procedure was adequately documented.
Didn't the American report have a list of suggestions as to how to prevent this kind of incident?
From reading the article, as it stands, a reader could walk away with the impression that the American report found nothing to fault. I'd like to suggest that this would be a highly misleading impression. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The section on the Italian report attributes to the Italian report aspects of the incident which were also acknowledged in the American report, giving the misleading impression that those aspects were in dispute, when they were not. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, user TDC has edited out a part I had written about the 400 round and tank issue. I do follow the Italian media and I am sure I never came across any mentioning of tanks in the incident.
A google search confirms that most articles with both Sgrena's name and carro armato are not about the issue (a notable exception is an Indymedia article, a apparently translation of an article in English by Jeremy Scahill. I personally would expect this misunderstanding to be originated by an Italian who mistranslated the English armoured vehicle into carro armato, which actually means tank (yes, I know HMMWVs are technically not armoured vehicles, but it's not what you are thinking at when it's shooting at you).
A google search with Sgrena's full name and blindato (the Italian word for armoured vehicle) turns up many more relevant articles in Italian. Really, this tank thing is mostly limited to English-speaking press.
About the 400 figure, I highly doubt Sgrena 1) was counting them 2) could keep pace with the gun 3) could count all the way to 400 in three seconds. The 400 figure was given by Pier Scolari on TV, just after talking to Sgrena on the phone, visibly and comprehensibly upset. Journalists, present there, propagated the figure because they did not know any better. I know it's a long shot, but he maybe uncounsciously connected with the Italian title of a movie by François Truffaut, Quattrocento colpi, which used to be popular among his generation. -- Orzetto 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The article says that someone who interviewed someone who interviewed Sgrena, said that they were shot on the reserved road that connected the Green Zone to the airport. So, this is a quote at three removes. It is a misinterpretation. There is an expressway connecting downtown to the airport, it isn't normally reserved. 23 hours a day, most days, it is open for ordinary civilian use. The US military shuts it down, once or twice a day, at unpredictable times, to devote it exclusively to convoys navigating from the "Green Zone" to BIAP. They shut it down by setting up temporary "blocking points", like the one where Calipari was killed, at all the on-ramps, so no civilians can enter the highway. Manning these blocking points is dangerous. The GIs are exposed to sniper fire, and are visible to artillery spotters from multistory apartment buildings that are near the highway. So the blocking points are only supposed to be staffed for just fifteen minutes or so -- just long enough to clear the road and let the convoy proceed. The third hand assertion that Sgrena already believed they were on the secured route was incorrect. Either Sgrena, or Klien, or Goodman misunderstood. Fair enough. But should it be repeated in the article, if we know it is untrue -- even if Sgrena may have been the one who believed it? -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Beautiful map. Orzetto, how did you determine which on-ramp was "route vernon"? Are you sure the blocking point was place at the bottom of the on-ramp, not at the entrance? I'll re-read the US report. But my recollection was that blocking points were at the entrances to the on-ramps.
Placing the blocking points at the entrances makes a whole lot more sense. On ramps are one way. If the blocking points were at the end of the on-ramp, all the stopped vehicles would have to reverse back up the ramp to get back on route vernon -- a recipe for disaster if there are further civilian vehicles wanting to use the expressway.
FWIW the photos the map is based on predates the invasion. Pre-invasion the airport express was tree-lined, with lots of nice green trees planted in the median. The US removed all the trees. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, Negroponte would, normally, have traveled to the airport by helicopter. He didn't, that night, because weather conditions precluded the use of the helicopter.
Negroponte only made a brief visit to the airport. By the time he was ready to return the weather conditions had improved enough for Negroponte to fly back. But no one told the soldiers who were holding Route Irish open for him. The rules were that the soldiers who were guarding Route Irish were only supposed to be on station for fifteen minutes. High-rise buildings, where snipers and artillery spotters had a good view, overlook the expressway. Fifteen minutes is supposed to be long enough for the soldier's roadblocks to empty the expressway of civilian traffic, so it is empty for the convoy, and for the convoy to travel the 12 km to the airport. But, it was thought to be brief enough that rebel artillery spotters couldn't organize a barrage, unless they and their batteries were on watch 24x7.
The soldiers guarding the roadblocks that night had been left in clear view of potential snipers and artillery spotters for over an hour and a half when the Italian's car came into view.
Anyhow, about the visibility:
I raise this merely so we can keep an eye out for authoritative, verifiable sources that would allow confirming or denying these reports.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A contrib was made at the top of this page, w/o a heading, by
68.163.182.60 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) at 14:55, 30 October 2007. A minute later, they removed the accurate sig they had initially placed there.
Instead of simply moving it from that improper position, i am suppressing the full text from this page, pursuant to the terms of
Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space and in light of the extreme language, the lack of either a stated proposal about the accompanying page's content or any relevance to it under WP's policies, and the apparent acting in concert with another IP in expressing similarly BLP-relevant statements. I substitute for it here a mixture of plain-text verbatim excerpts with my italicized paraphrases of the removed material:
This is just one US checkpoint killing that happened to get media attention cuz the victims were an Italian journalist and police agents. Imagine how many Iraqis may be killed by U.S. forces at checkpoints, and we never hear anything. Such acts could be easily concealed: burn the bodies and steal the cars or push them into a ditch.
--06:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:Nicola Calipari.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All of this discussion is pointless because the vehicle was stupidly targeted by U.S. forces on purpose because Al-Qaeda tricked them into it. Al-Qaeda used the fearfulness and trigger-happy qualities of the soldiers against them by reporting that her vehicle had an ied in it, the U.S. took the bait. They were scared to admit being duped and voila, conspiracy theories abound but alas it is the simple answer [ [1]]. If the car were going 1kph or 100 mph it was up against a soldier's fears which have no limits or reasonability! BTW Pier, you nailed it on all three! Pier said-->> Pier Scolari said "I hope the Italian government does something because either this was an ambush, as I think, or we are dealing with imbeciles or terrorized kids who shoot at anyone". unsigned comment added by |talk]]) 06:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there is too large overlapping in the pages of Giuliana Sgrena, Nicola Calipari and Mario Lozano about the incident. I think a specific article is in order, to integrate all the information in one place (and possibly orderly so). Information in those three articles would then be transfered here, leaving a link and possibly a short resume in the original pages, specific to the role of each character. Any thoughts? -- Orzetto 21:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that this suggestion is being implemented. I don't see where it was discussed, and consensus reached that it was a good idea. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The article currently says that the Americans, manning the roadblock, had successfully turned away two other vehicles before the arrival of the Italian's car. I read the report myself. What's going on? I read that they had turned back dozens of vehicles. I read that they had to fire warning shots in order to get half a dozen of those vehicles to stop. I read that several of those other vehicles had to screech their brakes, and leave skid marks, to stop in time.
The article does not make clear that the gunner was also tasked with aiming the hand-held floodlight -- a recipe for disaster.
The article says that Americans "followed procedure". Doesn't the American report say that the Americans had to receive on the job training from the previous unit, because the procedure for manning these roadblock was inadequately documented? I'd like to suggest that to say the Americans "followed procedure" gives the misleading impression that the procedure was adequately documented.
Didn't the American report have a list of suggestions as to how to prevent this kind of incident?
From reading the article, as it stands, a reader could walk away with the impression that the American report found nothing to fault. I'd like to suggest that this would be a highly misleading impression. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
The section on the Italian report attributes to the Italian report aspects of the incident which were also acknowledged in the American report, giving the misleading impression that those aspects were in dispute, when they were not. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, user TDC has edited out a part I had written about the 400 round and tank issue. I do follow the Italian media and I am sure I never came across any mentioning of tanks in the incident.
A google search confirms that most articles with both Sgrena's name and carro armato are not about the issue (a notable exception is an Indymedia article, a apparently translation of an article in English by Jeremy Scahill. I personally would expect this misunderstanding to be originated by an Italian who mistranslated the English armoured vehicle into carro armato, which actually means tank (yes, I know HMMWVs are technically not armoured vehicles, but it's not what you are thinking at when it's shooting at you).
A google search with Sgrena's full name and blindato (the Italian word for armoured vehicle) turns up many more relevant articles in Italian. Really, this tank thing is mostly limited to English-speaking press.
About the 400 figure, I highly doubt Sgrena 1) was counting them 2) could keep pace with the gun 3) could count all the way to 400 in three seconds. The 400 figure was given by Pier Scolari on TV, just after talking to Sgrena on the phone, visibly and comprehensibly upset. Journalists, present there, propagated the figure because they did not know any better. I know it's a long shot, but he maybe uncounsciously connected with the Italian title of a movie by François Truffaut, Quattrocento colpi, which used to be popular among his generation. -- Orzetto 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The article says that someone who interviewed someone who interviewed Sgrena, said that they were shot on the reserved road that connected the Green Zone to the airport. So, this is a quote at three removes. It is a misinterpretation. There is an expressway connecting downtown to the airport, it isn't normally reserved. 23 hours a day, most days, it is open for ordinary civilian use. The US military shuts it down, once or twice a day, at unpredictable times, to devote it exclusively to convoys navigating from the "Green Zone" to BIAP. They shut it down by setting up temporary "blocking points", like the one where Calipari was killed, at all the on-ramps, so no civilians can enter the highway. Manning these blocking points is dangerous. The GIs are exposed to sniper fire, and are visible to artillery spotters from multistory apartment buildings that are near the highway. So the blocking points are only supposed to be staffed for just fifteen minutes or so -- just long enough to clear the road and let the convoy proceed. The third hand assertion that Sgrena already believed they were on the secured route was incorrect. Either Sgrena, or Klien, or Goodman misunderstood. Fair enough. But should it be repeated in the article, if we know it is untrue -- even if Sgrena may have been the one who believed it? -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Beautiful map. Orzetto, how did you determine which on-ramp was "route vernon"? Are you sure the blocking point was place at the bottom of the on-ramp, not at the entrance? I'll re-read the US report. But my recollection was that blocking points were at the entrances to the on-ramps.
Placing the blocking points at the entrances makes a whole lot more sense. On ramps are one way. If the blocking points were at the end of the on-ramp, all the stopped vehicles would have to reverse back up the ramp to get back on route vernon -- a recipe for disaster if there are further civilian vehicles wanting to use the expressway.
FWIW the photos the map is based on predates the invasion. Pre-invasion the airport express was tree-lined, with lots of nice green trees planted in the median. The US removed all the trees. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, Negroponte would, normally, have traveled to the airport by helicopter. He didn't, that night, because weather conditions precluded the use of the helicopter.
Negroponte only made a brief visit to the airport. By the time he was ready to return the weather conditions had improved enough for Negroponte to fly back. But no one told the soldiers who were holding Route Irish open for him. The rules were that the soldiers who were guarding Route Irish were only supposed to be on station for fifteen minutes. High-rise buildings, where snipers and artillery spotters had a good view, overlook the expressway. Fifteen minutes is supposed to be long enough for the soldier's roadblocks to empty the expressway of civilian traffic, so it is empty for the convoy, and for the convoy to travel the 12 km to the airport. But, it was thought to be brief enough that rebel artillery spotters couldn't organize a barrage, unless they and their batteries were on watch 24x7.
The soldiers guarding the roadblocks that night had been left in clear view of potential snipers and artillery spotters for over an hour and a half when the Italian's car came into view.
Anyhow, about the visibility:
I raise this merely so we can keep an eye out for authoritative, verifiable sources that would allow confirming or denying these reports.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A contrib was made at the top of this page, w/o a heading, by
68.163.182.60 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) at 14:55, 30 October 2007. A minute later, they removed the accurate sig they had initially placed there.
Instead of simply moving it from that improper position, i am suppressing the full text from this page, pursuant to the terms of
Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space and in light of the extreme language, the lack of either a stated proposal about the accompanying page's content or any relevance to it under WP's policies, and the apparent acting in concert with another IP in expressing similarly BLP-relevant statements. I substitute for it here a mixture of plain-text verbatim excerpts with my italicized paraphrases of the removed material:
This is just one US checkpoint killing that happened to get media attention cuz the victims were an Italian journalist and police agents. Imagine how many Iraqis may be killed by U.S. forces at checkpoints, and we never hear anything. Such acts could be easily concealed: burn the bodies and steal the cars or push them into a ditch.
--06:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:Nicola Calipari.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)