Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:16:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
242 times
|
| |
|
|
Pedro Silva wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kyle McDonald writes:
>
> > The leadership of the army knew that the hotel was full
> > of journalists, and avoided making it an explicit target.
>
>
> 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'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 suggested. I don't know what their reasons
were (no one does yet.) and until I do I'm not going to judge their
actions.
> > 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.
>
>
> I understand the impracticability of attempting to do so; but this was *one*
> very specific building, not small at all, and relatively isolated from other
> major buildings. Wasn't this particular one worth a "heads up" notice to the
> troops? Everyone else can look for shelter during street fights, but
> reporters can only film the fight "in presentia", and that's what was
> happening from the hotel's balconies!
Who said the reporters have any right to be safe there at all?
They know it's risky, they've chosen to be there anyway. Or to
stay when the whole thing started. They could have left if they
felt it was too dangerous.
You seem to have the impression that this war is something like
the superbowl that has rules, and referees and 'out of bounds'
and gets covered by the press just like everyday life.
This is war. There are no real absolute rules. The Press thought
it would be a good event to cover. They felt that way strong enough
to to make it worth the risk of dying.
I bet if you asked any of them if they would expect the hotel
to not be shot at *even* if there were Iraqi's shooting from
other balconies, they would tell you that no, they would expect
it to be hit.
>
> > They are trained to react according to rules, one of which goes
> > like this:
> >
> > If you are fired upon, you are free to return fire.
> >
> > There's no qualifiers in there. It doesn't say check for journalists
> > and only shoot back if no one is in the way.
>
>
> I understand that rule.
> However, I'd point this out: how come that *dozens* of reporters on the site
> have *not* heard any shot fired from the hotel? They were closer to the
> building than the tank, they'd see or hear anything first.
> That "sniper" excuse is as lame as one gets...
I know I saw guns being fired from the Govt. building that
the tanks were originally shooting at. I know I saw the impact
and dust clouds from rounds landing near the tanks. I don't know
specifically if anything was fired from the Hotel, but I'm sure
the crews had their reasons for firing back.
Dozens of reporters outside? On that side of the building?
or inside in the lobby? in their own rooms?
None of us have anywhere near the needed info to really
criticize what happened. To do that you need to know what
happened and I'm not sure we do.
>
> > I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone who is being fired
> > at (yes they may be in a tank, but most of the time the tank
> > commander and driver's heads are out of the tank) to check a
> > map, try to figure out which building is which, and only then
> > return fire.
>
>
> Tank crew was on the inside, as seen on the TV footage. The tank was not
> isolated. The crew had time to look at that large buiding with "hotel"
> written somewhere in it! It doesn't require to look for it on the map - it
> required better observation skills!
> What about the DOZENS of reporters? Were they suddenly invisible?
Were the DOZENS of reporters all up on that balcony?
Not in any shot I saw. They may have been on the ground
outside the Hotel I don't know.
Are you sure the building said Hotel on it? In english?
On the side of the building the tanks could see?
Are all hotels off limits or only the ones with reporters?
What about the hotels with reporters that Iraq filled with
troops? I've heard stories of the other journalists being
forced to stay at another hotel in the city by Iraqi troops
so that they could be used as a human shield. I don't know
how much truth there is to these stories - we likely won't
know for a while, but say it's true, should the Tanks not
fire at that hotel?
The tanks were on a bridge 500-800 meters from the Govt.
building that they were definitely shooting at and being
shot at from.
I saw two different camera shots. One looked like it may
have been from the hotel of the Govt. building the tanks
first started shooting at.
The other was from the other side of the river (where the
tanks came from) of the bridge the tanks were on. This shot
was not close enough to see if the Tank crew had the hatches
open or not so maybe you saw a different shot or maybe I missed
a close up.
The 500-800 meter distance was from a reporter who was
guessing from watching the same picture they were showing
us. So it may not be accurate. The Hotel was never shown
in any picture I saw until afterwards, and the tanks
and the other Govt. building they were shooting at were
never in the same picture at the same time so the distance
is hard to judge. That tank can fire from up to 2 miles
away, so the distance could be even greater.
From that distance, while being shot at I don't think
it's un reasonable to shoot at *anything* moving near
where you think the shots came from. A camera man holding
a Camera could very well look like a person holding a
shoulder fired missile from that distance.
Some one else mentioned that a rifle won't do much to a
Tank. That's true. But what makes you think that the
shooter won't realize this, and run off to go get a
RPG or missile to shoot instead. As soon as anyone fires
at the tank, they are a valid target.
>
> > Sure in the relaxed quiet atmosphere of the planning room
> > targets are given some thought, and targets like this would
> > be avoided. On the front lines in the heat of a battle while
> > taking incoming fire, the soldiers are trained not to think.
>
>
> I understand it may be difficult to properly identify every single target
> and non-target; but this one? The place was screaming "media is here" from
> all over!
It was? There were signs? Big Symbols painted on the Walls?
Or just people standing on the balconies? Were they wearing
special signs? Ones that could be read from a half mile or
more away?
Even if it was clearly marked. Was it also marked that there
were absolutely positively *no* hostile forces in the Hotel?
>
> > They are practically 'programmed' to immediately fall back
> > on their training without thinking. That is what saves their
> > lives.
>
>
> It's sad to describe a human being as "programmed". Robots are programmed.
> Humans THINK - or they should at least. :-/
> In this case, I think the split second it takes to look around the balcony
> where the sniper supposedly was would have saved 2 more lives. Instead, what
> happened was like "Oh, what's that over there? BOOOM! Oh, I think that may
> be a hotel..."
Ok programmed was a bad word. My point was that they are
taught something and run through it over and over again just
so that when it happens for real they won't have to think
about it. You may not like it, but in many times in a war,
if you think you die.
I think they did take the split second to look around at all
of the balconies. They saw people moving. That was all they needed.
From as far away as they were I don't expect them to be able
to tell who is who.
Also Who is it you think died on the balcony?
I've heard several reports of reporters and camera men dying
yesterday, but the report I heard about the shot at the balcony
stated that *that* camera man was OK. Granted the info I got
was when the thing happened live, and was not complete, so
the details may be different now.
One of the people over there (I'm pretty sure it was the
camera man they show the picture of now) that I heard of
as dying was the one that they showed being carried through
the courtyard on a blanket to a truck. That happened well
before the shot at the balcony. That happened even before
the shots at the govt. building.
The report I saw was from a arab TV network with an arabic
speaking reporter, being interpreted real-time into english.
I think that leaves plenty of room for misunderstandings.
I don't doubt that many innocent people are dying, I'm just
not sure that all the news programs are showing the right clips,
or discussing exactly what they are showing. They are making it
way too easy for the viewing public to come away with the wrong
impression. Between the translation issues, and all the hands
the info passes through, It doesn't surprise me that two
separate statements "A cameraman was killed." and "A camera
man was shot at by a tank." get merged into "A camera man
was shot at and killed by a tank."
It may be true. It may not. Again, I heard reports last
night that that camera man was fine, and it was another
that was killed (who wasn't on the balcony). There also
was another reporter who was killed, both of these (as I heard
it) were not in the hotel at all, but instead in the headquarters
of their TV network that was near the hotel (and the Govt.
building.)
> Rush is the enemy of perfection, wouldn't you say?
Yes. I think the News people are rushing way too much too,
and I don't think anyone knows the full story yet.
>
> > The journalists knew when they decided to stay in Baghdad that
> > they were choosing to stay in a *war zone*. They weren't
> > tricked or duped or forced to stay. Bad things happen to
> > people ion war zones.
>
>
> Yeah, I also knew of what the Pentagon had to say...
> Again, this was uncalled for. It was not an accident - it was stupidity in
> action. Lack of reasoning. Too much adrenaline, perhaps?
Again, If the shots came from that balcony or any balcony
on that building then I don't feel that targeting that
building was a mistake. Also if the movement on that
balcony was what the tank personnel saw when they looked
to find the shooter, then I don't think targeting that
specific balcony (assuming they can be that accurate)
was not a mistake either.
>
> > I feel bad for the people killed and injured (and their
> > families and friends) through no fault of their own. But
> > I also don't see anyway to blame this on the front-line
> > soldier.
>
>
> I do.
> His eagerness to shoot without knowing what at, that's what is to blame.
> Sure, in the (unpopulated) battlefield that can save his life; but this
> place is a city, there are more than just friends and foes. He should have
> taken the extra second - is it better to kill an innocent, or to die
> attempting to save one?
Where is there ever an unpopulated battlefield? Quite a bit
of the fighting in WW2 was in cities too, with plenty of
civilians around. You get shot at, you shoot back. Period.
I think that the forces involved are taking extreme measures to
avoid getting innocents killed. I will agree that they may not
be taking every measure they could be though. I disagree that
this is one they should take.
There are even more people I've heard talking that claim
the forces are doing too much (putting too many soldiers at risk)
to try not to hurt innocent civilians. These people claim
that there should have been more bombing, of more questionable
targets, to ensure that the battlefield was safer for the
soldiers when they got there.
I'm not in that group, I think there probably is more that could
be done, but this one isn't one. Having the driver or commander
of a tank killed doesn't mean that just that one person dies.
The tank then becomes more of a sitting target, and the
whole crew is in jeopardy. The other tank doesn't have the
help it had before and is also in more danger.
So no I don't think that taking the time and dying is
worth saving one innocent person. This is war. This is what
makes war so horrible. This is why everyone tries to do
what they can to avoid war. Because once you do enter into
war, this is how you have to think and act.
> It's ironic that 15 years ago everyone joked at the Cuban soldiers who were
> in Angola, 'cause "they shot first and asked questions later". It's
> frightening to see the (bad) example has caught on with the US military.
I don't know anything about the Cuban event you mention, but
I've heard the phrase 'shoot first ask questions later' before.
I don't really remember it being used as a joke.
I do think that all soldiers, in all wars do (and should) follow
that mentality though. That is what makes war so horrible. I
think that the soldier need to think that way to survive. It's
only outside of war that people like police officers are trained
to work the other way around, and unfortunately too often that
doesn't work either.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Please elaborate. Personally, I think a (known to be occupied) hotel is a "don't shoot" place, much like a hospital. If the troops see anything that disproves that, then they should report to the hierarchy and ask for orders. It was a very (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
