Sorry, you're equivocating. You must know that by posting here, every single word you send out is going to be scrutinized.
1. Nowhere does it say that the Italian agent was killed by bullets. Seeing how the woman was hit by shrapnel in shoulder, I would think that it's safe to assume that was because that was the part of her not covered by someone else's body. In all likelihood, the agent took the full brunt of the engine block exploding from .50 caliber ammunition, used specifically for that purpose.
We all go by our assumptions, right? Some people (including you, it would seem) read the headline and immediately think that those trigger-happy Americans have killed another innocent victim, but, wait, there's more to this than meets the eye...hmmm...she was an outspoken peace advocate who wrote for a communist newspaper and urged the immediate withdrawal from the 'occupying forces', ergo, the Americans deliberately killed her in retaliation, probably with Rumsfeld's blessing.
On the other hand, a lot of people (myself included) read those headlines and wonder "Was there communication between the two groups? Did the Americans, who are under constant threat from suicide bombers (who generally approach their checkpoints at a high rate of speed) even know that the deal was going down?
Why were the Italians so eager to avoid American checkpoints and spirit their charge out of the country? I've heard it said that they didn't want her to have to undergoe interrogation about the kidnappers by coalition forces. Why?
Finally, as another poster mentioned, this wasn't a hostage rescue, it was a bag man passing ransom money over to a terrorist group who desperately need it to buy more munitions with which to kill American soldiers with, a fact the Italians aren't exactly proud of nor want made public.
Why should it be a problem? I do not mind if I am proven wrong.
Good point. There might be more than it meets the eye.