Posted on 03/07/2005 2:19:11 PM PST by rightalien
In an Italy under shock at the death of Nicola Calipari, emotions are prompting people to say and write many things that perhaps in a few days may look overstated, if not embarrassing. Of course, the writer is the first to understand, and up to a point even share, what lies behind those emotions. Take the anguish of Giuliana Sgrena, abducted by the very people she thought she was defending. For one month, she was a hostage to fear and the unknown, then only one step away from death, saved at the last by the sacrifice of one of the men who freed her. We are well aware that the anguish was not merely hers. It was shared by her many close companions. But when understandable emotion produces unequivocal, crudely polemical statements such as those we are currently reading in Il Manifesto newspaper, and which are echoed less assertively elsewhere, then it is permissible to put one or two - we think - not unreasonable questions. We’ll begin with the crucial one, which is this: is it true, as the self-styled “Communist Daily” headline puts it, that the death of Nicola Calipari was a “preemptive” and therefore premeditated, homicide? Is it true, as Rossana Rossanda writes, that the Americans were shooting “to kill,” and that Calipari’s death was “an assassination?” Can we really subscribe to the picture painted by Ms Rossanda of arrogant Yankee roughnecks, beardless and/or whisky-soused, complying with the “American maxim, ‘shoot first, ask questions later?,’ and obeying without objection the order ‘when those Italians arrive, eliminate them’?” Must we really trust Giuliana Sgrena’s feelings when she tells us that her abductors were very probably right when they told her, “the Americans don’t want you to go back,” adding her own comment that they - the Americans again - “don’t want our work to show what Iraq has become with the war, despite the so-called elections.” (As if the U.S. media publishes whatever the Pentagon says or, if that’s how things stand, as if all American journalists were also in mortal danger; as for the Iraqi elections that shouldn’t be called elections, what does Ms Sgrena think they should be called?). To continue, what might be the “information” in Ms Sgrena’s possession that, according to her life partner Pier Scolari, could justify an assassination by the Americans determined not to see it published? Finally, are we really to believe that the Italians’ car was hit by “400 bullets, a storm of projectiles” (Mr Scolari)? Are we really to believe Giuliana Sgrena when she says that she personally picked “handfuls of bullets” off the seat, but that, in this premeditated rain of fire from an armored vehicle against an automobile with no armor plating, only one passenger actually died? To us, at least, these look like reasonable questions. It seems to us equally reasonable to wonder in conclusion that if Washington had been determined that the Italian journalist should die, why - for her and our good fortune - did she survive? What caused the plot to abort? And why were two Italians actually left alive to bear witness to the attack? Let it be clear that it is quite possible that each of these questions has a satisfactory answer. But if that is the case, we hope that today, when heads are cooler, politicians and commentators from all parties will devote their attention to finding those answers. Because if we want to engage in a trial of strength with the U.S., we certainly can, but in the knowledge that it will not be won for us by emotions and strong words.
English translation by Giles Watson www.watson.it
I'm no ballistics expert but it seems to me that that many bullets would have been embedded in the car somewhere, in dead bodies or shattered to small pieces, not conveniently lying at this woman's feet for her to pick up oh so dramatically.
The story gets more preposterous every hour.
It would appear there are some sane journalists left in Italy.
Excellent catch.
That's a very sound and reasonable editorial. I think this Sgrena woman has ticked off a lot of Italians with her overheated, paranoid rhetoric. She looks like a fool and they don't want to look like fools alongside her. The U.S. military is doing the right thing in quietly investigating while this woman hangs herself with her own words.
Maybe the soldiers threw them at the car.
Bullets or empty shell casings? Not that a lib from Europe would know the difference.
What a well-written editorial. :)
I pray we have video.
It is possible.
That road is constantly under attack.
I am beginning to think that Calipari was already dead before they ran into the US military. The more she talks the more this smells.
This reminds me of my son when he was a toddler. He'd be telling me a story and you could see his eyes light up because he'd thought of a way to make the story better and he'd say, "and, and, and" as he improved the story. He had a very active imagination. I think this Italian "journalist" has a very active imagination.
I for one am wondering if maybe she let the so called insurgents use her to gain funds for thier crimes.
And she accuses the U.S. of possibly attacking her.
Yes it does. According to DU, this lady had evidence that the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah. But of course, these same people also believe that Bush is a Nazi who is going to put them all in concentration camps : )
In an Italy under shock at the death of Nicola Calipari, emotions are prompting people to say and write many things that perhaps in a few days may look overstated, if not embarrassing. Of course, the writer is the first to understand, and up to a point even share, what lies behind those emotions. Take the anguish of Giuliana Sgrena, abducted by the very people she thought she was defending. For one month, she was a hostage to fear and the unknown, then only one step away from death, saved at the last by the sacrifice of one of the men who freed her. We are well aware that the anguish was not merely hers. It was shared by her many close companions.But when understandable emotion produces unequivocal, crudely polemical statements such as those we are currently reading in Il Manifesto newspaper, and which are echoed less assertively elsewhere, then it is permissible to put one or two - we think - not unreasonable questions.
We’ll begin with the crucial one, which is this: is it true, as the self-styled “Communist Daily” headline puts it, that the death of Nicola Calipari was a “preemptive” and therefore premeditated, homicide? Is it true, as Rossana Rossanda writes, that the Americans were shooting “to kill,” and that Calipari’s death was “an assassination?” Can we really subscribe to the picture painted by Ms Rossanda of arrogant Yankee roughnecks, beardless and/or whisky-soused, complying with the “American maxim, ‘shoot first, ask questions later?,’ and obeying without objection the order ‘when those Italians arrive, eliminate them’?” Must we really trust Giuliana Sgrena’s feelings when she tells us that her abductors were very probably right when they told her, “the Americans don’t want you to go back,” adding her own comment that they - the Americans again - “don’t want our work to show what Iraq has become with the war, despite the so-called elections.” (As if the U.S. media publishes whatever the Pentagon says or, if that’s how things stand, as if all American journalists were also in mortal danger; as for the Iraqi elections that shouldn’t be called elections, what does Ms Sgrena think they should be called?).
To continue, what might be the “information” in Ms Sgrena’s possession that, according to her life partner Pier Scolari, could justify an assassination by the Americans determined not to see it published? Finally, are we really to believe that the Italians’ car was hit by “400 bullets, a storm of projectiles” (Mr Scolari)? Are we really to believe Giuliana Sgrena when she says that she personally picked “handfuls of bullets” off the seat, but that, in this premeditated rain of fire from an armored vehicle against an automobile with no armor plating, only one passenger actually died?
To us, at least, these look like reasonable questions. It seems to us equally reasonable to wonder in conclusion that if Washington had been determined that the Italian journalist should die, why - for her and our good fortune - did she survive? What caused the plot to abort? And why were two Italians actually left alive to bear witness to the attack? Let it be clear that it is quite possible that each of these questions has a satisfactory answer. But if that is the case, we hope that today, when heads are cooler, politicians and commentators from all parties will devote their attention to finding those answers. Because if we want to engage in a trial of strength with the U.S., we certainly can, but in the knowledge that it will not be won for us by emotions and strong words.
my understanding from accounts is that the road block soldiers understandably and correctly fired a large number of bullets at the engine block of the on-rushing vehicle which wasn't heeding their warnings. Motor parts/fragments themselves were what caused some of the impact in the passanger compartment.
My understanding of Italians seems to clash with this possibility.:-)
Galli della Loggia is a well-known, sensible
(i.e. moderately conservative)
Italian journalist.
"she personally picked “handfuls of bullets” off the seat"
The more this idiot talks, the more clear it is, she is making it up as she goes along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.