 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) Really? Not by any definition I'm familiar with - why do you think it suggests 'dozens'? We have a coalition government in Australia (and it's often refered to as 'The Coalition') which consists of only two parties. (And I note that our (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) I'll agree they probably didn't give an order that the building should never be shot at. I think that order would be just as idiotic. I don't think they shot at it just to shoot at reporters though either. Which some news reports have (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) This one was. See it in www.euronews.net (choose language first; by the time I'm writing this, it's the second video on the main stories page - requires real player to be seen). The story is here: (URL)b) "unclear", my @$$. European network (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) Tanks are not necessarily buttoned up (hatches closed with the crew inside). I don't know the current tactical doctrine on whether the commander stays exposed for greater visibilty or trusts to the optics and air-conditioning of the tank or (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) (I have reasons to believe there is a Polish contingent over there as well; and I know that the Spanish Navy has ships deployed in the region to assist in the operations. It's a wider gang than you may think at first, even though only 3 of the (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) From what I could see on the footage, there were at least two tanks and no visible ground troops. I assume the camera, which was located at the hotel, to have about the same viewpoint as the alleged sniper. (...) The RTP reporter was (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) As I pointed out in another post, people on the 11th floor didn't hear the actual explosion loudly enough to find it suspicious, so the failure to hear rifle fire is hardly incredible. I work in a conventional office building--if someone fired (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) I won't dispute that the leadership knew of the hotel, not that it did not want reporters killed. I ask you though, "to avoid making it an explicit target", isn't it implying it can very well be an "implicit" one, whatever that may be? (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
I must take exception to the use of the term "coalition" -- a coded term intended to suggest dozens in numbers when in actuality only 3 countries are actively participating in the INVASION of Iraq: the U.S., England, and Australia. Further, there (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
|
(...) It's hard to second-guess battlefield conditions, though I agree that it would have to be an impressive rifle to damage an Abrams. Were there unprotected soldiers or civilians on the ground near the tank? That might change the priority. A (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
