Hat tip: http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005303.php
As I was driving Number One home from her Girl Scout meeting, we heard the report on the radio that a Bulgarian soldier was killed in Iraq.
“I can’t really blame them,” she said after a moment’s pause. “If I was there, and fire came from a place I didn’t know, I would open fire too. You don’t know who it is and who they’re shooting at.”
Then she looked at me. “What would you have done, Abba?” That’s a good question. I gave an answer something along the lines of the same thing: if I saw fire coming from a place that I thought was free of friendly troops, I would open up too. But she hit it right on the head perfectly.
If a twelve year old can understand it, then why not the rest of the clowns reporting this? The same situation of making a quick decision with incomplete information applies to the shooting of the Italian security agent. Forget about the appeasing of terrorists with ransom for a moment. When someone does an action that can be perceived as hostile, like running at a checkpoint at high speed, there are likely to be fatal consequences, like getting shot. Of course, it makes for better conspiracy theories if we chant like Easton and make allegations of deliberate targeting of journalists, rational thought be damned.
Now, even though I’m not the biggest Carl Sagan fan, there is an intelligent quote attributed to him that his appropriate here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Americans targeted some nothing Communist writing for a nothing rag? Pony up. This I gotta see.
Evidently, there were 300 to 400 rounds fired. Wow. But, looking at the photos of the vehicle, there don’t seem to be a lot of holes. In my experience, machine guns make a lot of holes. Fast. This car doesn’t seem to have a lot of them. So I am led to think two things: 1. the ammunition expended wasn’t that high, and 2) most went into the engine block or the air. Which would be consistant with firing to disable the oncoming vehicle or warn off the driver at the checkpoint.
The money quote is from Sgrena, the Italian muckraker: “So I don’t see why I should rule out that I could have been the target.” Obviously, not being bound by logic or objective rationalism, she is not able to see what is going on around her. Running a checkpoint gets the vehicle shot up. Not because you are a libelous mouthpiece, but because you are a nudnick. Or, rather, the driver of the car was a nudnick, but there is enough to go around.
As for the appeasement of paying a ransom, well, that is just idiocy. Paying up only encourages this activity of grabbing more hostages. I am not aware of any group that got money in exchange for hostages has come out saying “thanks, and we are done doing nasty things since we have enough dough now.” In fact, we could go as far as saying that Sgrena and her payors are responsible for the next hostage taken. Bet that Italian hostages continue to be taken; there seems to be a good return on investment.
Unless, of course, allied forces get the terrorists first.
Standing up and saying no to the groups involved is what is needed. That is what stops the kidnappings. Word filters out that getting involved with the terror groups doesn’t result in a glorious battle against infidels, but a quick ignomious end.