Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:11:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
360 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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?
No.
> How far up do
> they have to go to wait for orders?
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 tank, process it, and issue any possible line of conduct.
I do remind you that this is a very specific location, known to be crammed
with reporters. If the tank crewman saw what he thought was a
sniper/spotter/whomever in a building previously marked "out of bounds", he
should report it immediately (even for the safety of friendly troops!).
Perhaps the course of action ordered from above would be different, perhaps
not - the important is, someone would have taken responsability over it.
> 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.
See above my clarification.
> 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.
Do I need to remind you that "embedded reporters" are even closer to the
action? Meters from it, while this hotel was hundreds of meters away from
the tank?
> 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.
I understand that as if you said walking in "The Projects" (like, low rent
housing) is dangerous, because police can be there for a round-up and
arreest me as well. If I demand better judgement from the officers, why
can't I ask for better judgement from the military?
> 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".
One of them being:
a) take cover when fired upon from a theoretically "safe" building;
b) contact the boss;
c) act according to orders (presumably, the boss assumes the responsability
for them).
> 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).
Agreed (in philosophy; the worldwide application is not for my lifetime, sadly).
Of course you understand from the moment you say those are not rules, rather
"goals", they become useless. You can later say, "oh, I tried to fulfill
those, but I couldn't..."
> We must recognize that desperate people take
> desperate measures.
Was the crew desperate? Or just too hyped up?
> 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).
Digressing a bit, I ask:
If the person is a terrorist, wouldn't he chose to suffer rather than reveal
any truthful information? Torture would in the end be useless against a
motivated person (numerous examples of it are called "heroism" when referred
to French Resistance, for instance)
Unless you're referring to strict aplication of truth-drugs? That is
arguably torture in itself.
> > > 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).
It takes more than a split second to aim and fire a tank. 4 people are
inside, one of them can easily ask "what are we shooting at?"
> > > Who said the reporters have any right to be safe there at all?
> >
> > In a *hotel*?
>
> What makes a hotel so sancrosanct?
Non-combatants. Why else is a place of worship sacrossant? Or an embassy? In
the end, all are just buildings.
> 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?
That's Baghdad, not Manhattan - not that many high rise buildings, even
fewer with gardens on the front (and on the riverfront, BTW).
Why would there be high-rise apartment buildings in Baghdad? The land is
cheap, and steel is expensive (for them).
> And one
> that has balconies is an ideal place to station military observers and
> snipers.
I don't say it couldn't be used for it. All I say is dozens of people on the
site have not seen what a tank crewman "saw" from 800m away. After reading
Bruce's post, I think he may have understood a camera as binoculars from a
"spotter" - but why would there be so many "spotters" (ie, cameracrews) on
the same building?
> > > 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.
No argument there.
I also think it's good to avoid hitting them. Or better, to be aware of
their presence.
> > > 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.
(Commented above as well)
> > > 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,
(What about other snipers with high speed rifles?)
> 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.
You can report it, so someone better equipped can take him out.
> 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).
Ok.
He wasn't outside.
> 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 understand it's hard to look at everything from the inside.
But the commander *was* on the inside (sadly, apparentely), safe from
snipers, and had plenty of time to look at the target and identify it
correctly. If you're correct that he only say a part of the hotel and shot
immediately, then it's a bit of rush in action, isn't it?
An analogy: you're in a sooting range with a sniper rifle; you point at the
first target you see on the scope, and fire. When you raise your head, you
see the guy next to you staring at you, asking himself why you just shot his
target. Is it clever action, to shoot at whatever "moves" (so to speak)
within your field of vision?
> > > 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).
We'll never really know, will we? Or should I ask conditionally?
> > > 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?
Invasion? Where does that come from?... (Any siege mentality?)
If you had one civilian in every building, it would be easy to miss him. If
you have one combatant in a building, it's hard not to hit the wrong person
if you miss him.
> 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).
I have no beef with the way things have been militarily conducted in general.
> War is hell.
(And that cliché is omnipresent in this thread! ;-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) If the sniper had fired an RPG at the tanks instead of an AK-47 (or whatever), would you likewise assert that the targeted soldiers should hunker down and wait? And, once you agree that the presence of an RPG changes things, you'll need to (...) (21 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) But why does some "commander" have to make a decision? The tank commander is a "commander". If a tank commander can't make immediate decisions, then how can you argue that anyone short of the chief can make decisions? Does a private have to (...) (21 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
