Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:12:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
369 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kyle McDonald writes:
> 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.
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
delicate case, it demanded better judgement.
> I don't think they shot at it just to shoot at reporters though either.
I don't think that either. I think they shot out of poor judgement. VERY poor.
> 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?
In a *hotel*?
> 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.
And then how would the world have known of what was happening? Through
Iraq-propagandavision, or US-we'rethebestvision?
Come on!
> 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.
*No rules*? Then how come the Geneva convention was invoked? (note that I
agree with its invocation)
> 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.
If there were iraquis shooting from the hotel, wouldn't they have seen it,
and have the chance to leave?
And even in that case, to shoot a sniper in a crowd, would you shell it???
> > > They are trained to react according to rules, one of which goes
> > > like this:
(note: there ARE rules after all)
> > > 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.
Unless the gunner had Parkinson, I can't see which one.
> Dozens of reporters outside? On that side of the building?
> or inside in the lobby? in their own rooms?
In the courtyard, filming the tanks across the river. On the ceiling. On the
balconies. On the terrace (above the lobby?).
> 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.
Please see my other post for links. There was footage of this.
> > > 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.
They are room balconies - each room has its own. Many balconies had crews on
them; one had the RTP reporter boadcasting live, for instance.
> Are you sure the building said Hotel on it? In english?
It even says so in french. And Spanish, and German, and Portuguese, and
Italian, and... :-|
> On the side of the building the tanks could see?
The hotel is facing the river. The tanks were across the river. Usually, the
facade has the signs.
> Are all hotels off limits or only the ones with reporters?
All that are occupied by unarmed people. They can be taken, they can't be
fired upon. After all, it's a civilian building - it changes if troops were
indeed in the place: if they were isolated they could be shot at, if near
civilian targets another course of action would have been required. The
nearest example is the efficiency required from a SWAT team, adapted to the
circumstances.
> 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.
And I've heard that this particular hotel has weird things going on in it.
But on the basement, not the 15th floor. And NO snipers.
> 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?
No. TANKS, no. Special forces would have been required: it'd be a hostage
situation.
> The tanks were on a bridge 500-800 meters from the Govt.
> building that they were definitely shooting at and being
> shot at from.
They were on the entrance of the bridge, yes, and one of them seems to be
shooting forward in the direction of the MoInformation. The other has the
turret turned towards the hotel.
> 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 images I saw were taken from the roof (or high balcony) of the hotel by
a french TV (then forwarded to Euronews). Some others were from reporters on
the ground, in front of the hotel.
> 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.
If a tank shoots towards the camera, and a second or so later the camera
shakes, what do you conclude?
> 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.
When in doubt, shoot?
> 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.
At 800m, it would have to be a *heavy* RPG to pierce a tank... not a
portable one!
> > > 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?
No. In deserted streets, doesn't a building with a large number of people on
the balconies call attention? Wouldn't you wonder what it was?
> Or just people standing on the balconies? Were they wearing
> special signs? Ones that could be read from a half mile or
> more away?
"people standing on the balconies", at 800m. That's enough, isn't it? If the
tank crew can't identify what it's shooting at, isn't it wise to radio
command and ASK?
> Even if it was clearly marked. Was it also marked that there
> were absolutely positively *no* hostile forces in the Hotel?
And what, does that allow for a wild shot? Aimed at any random wall?
> > > 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.
Hooray for trigger happiness, then?
I think that's innacurate; you have to think... only you have to do it
*fast*. Not everything can be predicted in training, so a part of it should
be "how to think what can't be taught". There's the time for thinking.
> 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.
I rest my case.
> 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.
*That* was not the hit room. The one shown was ABOVE the destroyed place.
> 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 man being carried on the blanket *in the hotel lobby* was the spanish
reporter from Telecinco - he died in hospital 4 hours later.
The man you're mentioning was from an Arab TV, in a separate incident
earlier in the day. He too was transported in a blanket.
> 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.
Not really. That picture was from another incident.
> 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."
What about:
"As a result of an air raid, one arab reporter was killed" and "as a result
of a tank bombing, one ukrainian cameraman and a spanish reporter were killed"?
> 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.)
The arab TV reporter. He was, like you say, a victim of a separate incident.
> > 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.
Sure. We still would like to hear the man who shot... but the boss won't let
him.
> > > 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.
Is every bug that flies a wasp? No. So if you want to know if you risk being
stung, you look carefully. THEN you take action. Because you'd probably feel
sad to hit a honeybee, which makes the sweet honey...
The same principle is applicable. DO NOT SHOOT at unidentified targets. Easy
to learn!
> > > 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.
Mountains. Deserts. Swamps. Any place where the poplulation density is low.
Of course much of the fighting happens in cities, I haven't denied it! All I
say is it takes more care to act in a city than in the field, the risk from
missing a target becomes almost automatically the risk to hit a non-target.
> 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.
I agree that globally much is being done. I believe there is will to prevent
it. But not taking every possible measure is not something one would expect
from the US troops (allegedly the best trained and equipped on Earth).
> 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.
There are more insane people in the world than there are asylum beds. They
have to be somewhere...
> 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.
Thank you for clarifying.
> 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.
(note: now you have to think...)
> > 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.
It was black humor, I admit. Then again, I'm european - according to the
latest in stereotypes, I'm cynical.
> 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.
And I think that was what made batches of soldiers seek help in VA's, from
having repeating nightmares.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) I think this particular regime waived that notion when they started stationing (and firing) AA from inside hospitals and stationing (and firing) tanks next to mosques. These reporters were told that Baghdad was a dangerous place and they would (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Do they have to wait for orders from above for ANY threat? How far up do they have to go to wait for orders? Does each soldier have to call Bush (commander in chief) on the phone before shooting someone who might be a non-combatant? Soldiers (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
