Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:11:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
Pedro Silva wrote:
>
> 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.
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 need to make split second decisions or they're
dead. The evidence may eventually show that this was a bad decision, but
it's still hard to second guess the decision.
Reporters have a duty to make themselves easily identifyable, and to
avoid getting too close to combatants, or anyone who might look like a
combatant. Sure, it can be darned hard when you're in a tall building
and someone is acting suspicious on a balcony on another floor. Perhaps
the reporters should have thought about that before entering Iraq.
As far as hospitals go, they clearly require even more care, on the
other hand, once the enemy decides their situation is so dire that they
must use subterfuge (note that I'm not automatically declaring Iraq has
committed war crimes by having soldiers in civilian dress, or driving
car bombs into check points, or using hospitals as defence posts, if we
did, we would have to condemn many people in occupied Europe as war
criminals), then they must also expect a change in the "rules of
engagement".
The concept of the Geneva Convention and "rules of war" is nice, but
most of it must be taken as an ideal to strive for (of course the real
ideal to strive for is a world that doesn't need armed conflict to
resolve its differences). We must recognize that desperate people take
desperate measures. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with
judging people by their actions. From that perspective, I can understand
certain abhorrent actions (I would probably in the end accept torture if
it was used to wrangle the location of a huge bomb from a captured
terrorist for example).
> > 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.
Until you have spent a day in a city in war with people shooting at you,
I reject your out of hand judgement (not that I have spent such time
under fire, but I have thought about the situations, and realize split
second decisions are made, and some will wind up being horribly wrong).
> > Who said the reporters have any right to be safe there at all?
>
> In a *hotel*?
What makes a hotel so sancrosanct? Hotels have often been used as
command posts in war. Also, how easily can you tell the difference
between a high rise hotel and a high rise apartment building? And one
that has balconies is an ideal place to station military observers and
snipers.
> > 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!
And it is good that some reporters choose to take the risk, but they
must accept a risk.
> > 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)
See the above for comments about the Geneva Convention.
> > 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???
Yup. Snipers can be blasted hard to hit with small arms fire, and if
they are on the balcony of a high rise building, you can't take them out
with a grenade (probably the most common way snipers are taken out). And
just because you're in a tank, you can't just leave him there. For a
tank to be most effective, especially in an urban setting, the commander
must be able to have his head out, otherwise, you get a tiny view of the
world (and can miss things like people in orange vests kneeling in the
road). Modern tanks have much more visibility than they used to, but
they still suck (if you want an approximation that begins to reach what
the limitations of visibility are [and probably even the limits of
maneuverability], try driving your car in reverse to work some day...).
> > 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.
That's right, you can't see a reason. You know why? Because you weren't
there. You aren't getting the same picture the tank gunner had (note you
need to see it from HIS viewpoint, not a reporters video camera on a
high rise balcony).
> > 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.
Ok, so all I have to do to prevent invasion no matter how justified is
have an unarmed person in each building?
Perhaps we should return to the rules of war used by the "good guys" in
the last war that is popularly accepted as reasonable. Let's see, shall
we nuke Bagdad or fire bomb it, or maybe we should just carpet bomb it?
Since everyone is so critical about the "precision" munitions, perhaps
we should go back to the Norden bomb sight (which supposedly gave the
ability to plant a bomb in a pickel barrel, but of course such accuracy
was never reached in real action).
War is hell.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) No. (...) It's not just "wait for orders"; is "wait for superior assessment of the altered situation". The hotel, which would in abstract be a non-target, might become one AFTER command's assessment of the situation. They receive info from the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
