Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:00:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
158 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > 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!
>
> Tanks are not necessarily buttoned up (hatches closed with the crew inside).
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:
http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&lng=1&option=1,info
> > 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?
>
> The truth is out there. It will come out eventually.
See the video and judge for yourself.
> > 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.
>
> Dunno. Could be, then again, I don't see enough information to say "absurd"
> or "grotesque". Yet. I have a hard time getting worked up over things like
> this when first reported. Conflicting reports come out, disinformation,
> misinformation. The story mutates and then it seems like wasted emotion.
Reports are one thing; they can cause confusion. Today for instance, I woke
up with Saddam friends dead, and by bedtime they're missing (again). The
images of the hotel bombing are explicit enough, though.
> > 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?
>
> Yes. Idiocy and high-explosives are a dangerous mix. But see below.
>
> > "Support the troops"... yeah, right. You might start to do that providing
> > them with some good sense!
>
>
> Have good sense. A person that voluntarily joined the military. These are
> mutually exclusive terms. :-)
I appreciate your irony; under peaceful circumstances, I'd laugh. Right now
that has costed lives. Sorry mate, today I'm as sad as a man can be :-(
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) option with the exceedingly long lag delays. Neither the story nor the video. The video would only be conclusive if it showed the whole incident from start to finish, not just the moment of firing. (...) Regarding reports: see what I mean? (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
