| |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/08/sprj.irq.hotel/index.html
Quote:
"U.S. military officials said U.S. forces fired on the Palestine Hotel in
response to sniper fire from various floors. It is not clear if the
explosion was the result of the U.S. response."
Comments to this:
a) the hotel was across the river from the US forces, which happened to be
*tanks* - those snipers must have had powerful guns, to harm those crews!
b) "unclear", my @$$. European network EuroNews has shown images of a M1A1
tank firing roughly towards the camera, and one second later a big shake on
the hotel. Coincidence?
c) if warning was given to journalists when the Ministry of (dis)Information
was to be hit, how come none was issued now that the journalist were "at base"?
Absurd. And grotesque.
Whomever identified that hotel as a target, that person clearly has no
capability to foresee the consequences of his actions. Wouldn't any army be
better off expurged of such incompetents?
"Support the troops"... yeah, right. You might start to do that providing
them with some good sense!
Pedro
(appalled by this demonstration of idiocy from a soldier, which *I hope* is
not representative of the bulk of coalition troops)
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) The leadership of the army knew that the hotel was full of journalists, and avoided making it an explicit target. However I don't think that every front line soldier is given a map of every building and told which to shoot and which not to. (...) (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)
| | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
