From BBC News:
Quote:
Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena has said she cannot accept US troops accidentally fired on her car after her kidnappers freed her in Baghdad.
Ms Sgrena told the BBC Americans guarding Baghdad airport might not have been informed about her arrival, but their actions could not be excused.
Earlier, she suggested US troops might have deliberately tried to kill her.
Ms Sgrena told BBC News she could not say "why they shot at us in this way".
"But it's a very big responsibility and we ask a response on what happened," she said.
"It can't be just said that it was just an accident. We can't accept this, it is not possible."
She said Italian officials knew her car was on the airport road and she assumed they had informed the Americans.
She could not say if she was deliberately shot at "because we can't say if there was misinformation (in context, "miscommunication" - WW), but also misinformation in this case is a responsibility because you are in a war field".
"You have to have the responsibility to pass immediately any information and the information was given to the Italians that we were on the road so I think that they have given the information to tell the Americans that we were on the road."
|
OK, let's break this down.
1) They had NOT passed "all roadblocks", that has been clearly established.
2) She admits that Americans at the roadblock may not have known her convoy was coming.
3) Still unclear as to warnings, but she was quoted on CBS news that she did not see any flashing lights or see any hand signals. However, the airport road in Baghdad is quite busy. Who, by the way, was driving the car? What does he say about this? I'd like to hear it, if someone has a link to his report.
4) As she says above, she cannot say for certain that the shooting was deliberate. She says it seems possible that there was miscommunication between the Italians and the Americans. She appears to lay the blame for that miscommunication on the Americans, although that is an assumption on her part, as stated above.
5) Now for the
BIG ONE: the BBC actually published this under the headline, " Hostage's shooting 'no accident'". Now that's a laugh! They used old information to open the article with that tricky third person singular present tense "has", which is also acceptable in common usage to connote a recent event in an evolving circumstance. And that is the
entire basis, as far as I can see, for their having been technically able to get away with that headline. The BBC unbiased?
This is outright journalistic and grammatical chicanery, wouldn't you say?
So there you have it folks, the "conspiracy" hype is already losing it's foundation! But I'm sure that there will be those who will weave the theory that someone "got to" Sgrena. God knows the BBC is putting this story on life support.
