I do not claim that they were doing this intentionally (but anyone might have such suspicion, especially those who protest too much). The agent died because he was covering her - so the bullets were coming into her direction.
So you think the soldiers knew who she was, where she was sitting in the car, and so on? Then why didn't they finish her off after the car stopped? This is ridiculous. A car tried to run a US military roadblock in the dark and the soldiers opened fire. They obviously fired only a few rounds, or everyone in the car would have been killed instantly. I'm not one of the people here who wishes the woman journalist had been killed, but I doubt if the soldiers knew the identities of anyone in the car. The shooting was entirely the fault of the people who tried to run the roadblock.
Also, she's the one who's claiming he shielded her with his body. We don't have any clear evidence, other than her word, that that is really what happened. And who has more motive to lie? The US soldiers doing their jobs or an anti-American journalist??
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.
The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that our bullets were intended to disable the car, to make it stop.
Which is what the driver should have done.
The soldiers said they aimed at the engine block -- that is very reasonable, because they wanted to stop the car, in case it had a bomb. Killing the occupants, wouldn't necessarily stop the car.
Besides, we only had the journalist's word on the idea that the agent died because he was covering her -- this sure made it sound more dramatic.
You mean the bullets were aimed at the car?
The car not stopping, but instead speeding toward a checkpoint?
In a region swarming with suicide car bombers?
BTW, machine gun bullets are not stopped by a single human body...even after penetrating a windshield. He did not save her by covering her with his body. She just lucked out with a shoulder wound.