Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:15:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
367 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > I regret to hear it's no longer there. If I find this video on the web,
> > would you care for me to send it?
>
> Post it here, but I believe that I have seen the video on CNN - they were
> showing it, but running on about something else. Tank shoots building.
> Pretty straightforward and undeniable.
Then you've probably seen it. I'm still looking for the video, though.
> > The footage showed some 5 secs of the tank turret taking aim, then shooting,
> > then the camera shook. If the tank and the target had been in different
> > images, then it would be a lot more suspicious.
>
>
> (strategic snipping of my own comments to string this together for a single
> answer)
>
> >
> > The video shows two tanks, one aiming forward (towards the MoInformation?),
> > and the other one aiming (and shooting) the hotel. There is sound in the
> > pics; no rifle bullets are heard, but the tank shot is heard a little after
> > the explosion in the hotel.
> > There was no sniper; the tank crew may *thought to have seen one*, but if
> > noone else much nearer saw anything...
> > The ground was hit near the tanks, yes, by what appeared to be rifle fire;
> > from the direction of the dust that was lifted from the ground, I suppose
> > the shot came from the front of the tank, and not the side at where the
> > turret was aimed. In appearance, the other tank was "at work", while this
> > one was shooting at the wrong side.
>
> I had a chance to get home and pull out today's Los Angeles Times, which
> covers the incident on page 3 of the front part (for those of you reading
> along at home). The tanks had come under fire, including mortar fire. It
> is not directly explained in the article, but mortars are a high angle,
> indirect fire weapon. In a case like this, they would use spotters. Sure
> enough, the tank commander received a report that there were people on the
> roof of a nearby building with binoculars. They were under fire by weapons
> requiring a spotter and guys with binoculars were observing them. There
> were not firing at suspected snipers, but at what they believed were
> artillery spotters. There was nothing marking the building as a site that
> was housing neutrals, and the crew had no knowledge of the press being
> there. Alas, it is pretty much incumbent upon neutrals willfully in an area
> that they were warned about being an extremely dangerous war zone to stay
> clear, and the crew reacted within their guidelines (all as currently
> presented - as I said, more information comes out, stories change). One of
> those tragic accidents of war (war sucks).
I still maintain the crewmen could have chosen to look more carefully. The
hotel has enough side clearance to stand isolated, so there are no
distractions to it. e might have wondered what that building was exactly,
with balconies in it (they're not that common in office buildings).
That's why I argue no common sense was used in the identification of the
hotel as a target.
Besides, why shoot one person, in a crowde building, with a shell? Why not
send in a small spec ops team to do it without risking to hit a non-target?
> The story also confirmed something I suspected given your reaction to it: My
> sympathies on the loss of your countryman killed in the incident.
Wrong country, mate :-)
But he did come from closeby. He was, if I got it right, Galician.
> Reporters
> are usually not given enough credit for going into dangerous situations in
> quest of the truth. One thing that we must do, as the interpreters of the
> images we see, is do just that: interpret what we see. A five-second clip
> simply does not tell the story - it only confirms that the tank, indeed, did
> really shoot at the hotel.
Was it reasonable use of force?
If indeed the tank crewman thought he saw a spotter (and I have to give him
eagle eyes to choose among all the people with lenses on the balconies),
wasn't that whole incident a lot like using a nuke to kill flies?
Pedro
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) What if they didn't have a special ops team? You seem to want the military to hang its butt out to avoid any possibility of injuring non-combatants. If the good guys always fought the way you seem to want them to, we wouldn't be living in (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) The answer is simple: they were under fire. You can't wait around for a Delta Force team to be rounded up, briefed, assess the situation, and then make a strike. Mortar rounds are coming in *now*. I don't think asking guys in a tank to take (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Post it here, but I believe that I have seen the video on CNN - they were showing it, but running on about something else. Tank shoots building. Pretty straightforward and undeniable. (...) (strategic snipping of my own comments to string this (...) (22 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
