Not enough information on this one yet. There are any number of explanations good and bad for it. But I will say this.

It's her claim that there were 300-400 rounds shot, and her claim that she was targetted. If she was targetted and only one fatal wound was caused, we now have an explanation for tw's too-high expenditures of bullets: US servicemen are horrible shots.

It's my understanding that that's generally the case no matter what conflict.

er Ut wouldn't that mean you are more likely to be shot in DC if you happen to be a US soldier than Iraq? I cannot believe that total includes anything other than troops, the number of hacks and associates shot by US troops alone wouldn't be far off that toll. Considering her political position and the dislike of the US of people paying bribes to get their citizens back I wouldn't be surprised to learn this was an assassination attempt.

Also - isn't a box 100 rounds? i was looking though photos I've got, all the shots where you can see 50cal mounted weapons the box has 100 on it. From memory those things have a rate of about 600 RPM, that means we're only looking at a 7 second or so burst. She claims tank, considering everything I'd say she might mean APC.

That's true Jag, the number is misleading - probably intended to make a statement about gun control and I took it out of context.

I'm against paying bribes for hostages and we can thank the Philippines because they did it first. When they did it the price was lower too - $6M. The new price is $10-13 million.

There is too much error in every party's statements. Most glaring is a credibility problem with any statement from the military. Politics being more important than the truth. Not because the military is lying as it did in VietNam. Unlike Vietnam, the military now has public affairs people from the White House who approve what military spokesmen say. Similar to how the USSR military worked. USSR military commands also required approval of the political officer. In Iraq, they are not called political officers. But military spokesman in Iraq must get permission from a White House official who is attached to his office. Military must lie when ordered to by the politicians. And so we have a new variation of the 5 o'clock follies.

When White House approval is required for a public statement, then nothing from the military spokesmen in Iraq can be accepted at face value. First ask what are White House objectives before even considering the credibility of the public statement. Being politically correct has become more important than the truth - just like in Vietnam.

Was it a tank, an APC, or two Humvees that fired on the Italians? Clearly the victims are not a fully reliable source of information when so much violence happened so quickly and without warning. Were US troops trying to first warn the car? Maybe. But the car's occupants never got that warning until fired on. That is what US troops were also doing in that Frontline piece. The car was 1/4 miles away. Since it did not stop 1/4 to 1/2 mile away, then US troops fired on the car. Would you stop 1/4 mile away from an officer who is ordering you to stop? Most would never even see that officier let alone understand what that officer was ordering. But this is Iraq where everything is much worse than what the White House spins.

It will take long to sort through the details. But the bottom line fact remains unchallenged. Iraq is a far more dangerous place then the White House claims. These politicians are not interested in the truth. They want you to "don't worry ... be happy". This justifies lying. Just like in Vietnam, everyone in Iraq is 'assumed' to be the enemy. Happens when troops are there on lies from top management - just like in Vietnam. This Italian was killed because the situation in Iraq is like Vietnam - where there was 'light at the end of the tunnel'. We learned that light was nothing more than shing white teeth on a smiling and lying politician. Iraq is that unstable no matter how the administration spins it. That is one fact this dead Italian proves - and that the White House denies.

The details of this shooting are irrelevant to that bottom line. Good Morning - Vietnam. 30 years later and we do the same mistakes. When do we finally burn a village to save it?

Pictures of the car:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/070580.php

photos seem to be very selective about what they show, no clear shots of the whole bonnet or the windscreen, a guy was shot and she had shrapnel in her shoulder, some stuff must've gone though the windscreen. There are no clear shots of the indside and the whole side window is missing, if it was shot though someone kindly cleared away the remains of it before the photos were taken making it impossible to tell if 1 or 100 rounds went though it. Something stinks here.

If that's truly the car, then that rules out 50 cal or any other US military machine gun for that matter. :confused:

Depends on the window, if it was laminated safety glass like a windshield then it would show multiple holes before it would collapse. However, if it was tempered safety glass like most US cars, one bullet would likely take out the whole window and the second shot for sure. :cool:

I'm sorry, if 300 rounds were fired at that vehicle, I would expect at least 30 rounds to have hit it, and if that many rounds had actually hit the car then it would be in much worse shape.

Assuming that that was the car, and that many rounds were fired, etc., etc...

Wouldn't there be some fragments left at the bottom? This doesn't make sense. She had shrapnel in her shoulder, how the fuck do you get SHRAPNEL in your shoulder if the entire front of the car including windscreen is intact?

If they fire into the engine block and pieces of bullet and engine go through the firewall.

bonnet shows no signs of damage, no does the cowel inside, if you start bursting 50cal into it, you'd be able to see some damage. If the engine was shot out that would imply they were shot from the front, so why would the side window be the direction he was shot from (there's no bullet hole in the windscreen). There's no damage to the front but the front tire looks like it was shot out. I don't know what or why but something doesn't add up here somewhere.

If that is a bullethole in the windscreen it's a very low angle to hit the driver without hitting the cowel first. Secondly, every time I've seen a car shot up by US troops for not stopping it's been riddled, I'm sure it's not practice to fire one shot like that.