Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:00:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
351 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> 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 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 architectural quizes in the
middle of combat is realistic. Let's presume that it was a hospital
building with a big red cross on it with spotters calling in artillery
strikes from its roof. Obvious building without comparative balustrade
construction techniques through a periscope required. The outcome would be
the exact same, and as long as there was reasonable cause, *any* country's
military would do the exact same thing.
Common sense would be to not voluntarily go into a war zone. Common sense
would not be to sit in a confused area with no lines with no readily
identifiable way of establishing that you are a non-combantant.
Why shoot in a crowded building with a shell? Imagine yourself in the tank:
do you see that the building is crowded? No. What's the best way of taking
out the spotter? Main gun. If you shilly-shally, what happens? You and
the rest of your unit remain under fire. Your duty? Take out the spotter.
You cannot just sit around paralyzed in combat.
> > 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?
Yes, given the situation.
> 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?
A second time: observers from outside of the tank saw someone with
binoculars, not the tank crew. Presumably they were using binoculars, too,
so I don't know what "eagle eyes" has to do with it, though traditionally in
military units, you use the guy with the best eyes as a spotter.
A nuke to kill flies? No. It was probably the best thing to use, in fact.
Rifle bullets would be very difficult to actually hit the target, grenades
wouldn't have the range or accuracy, artillery or air strikes *would* be
overkill and too slow, in any case.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) There is more than one way to take an objective. This approach, if proven too hard, could be abandoned for a better one. (...) That situation you refer as possible would present an interesting possibility: to wait, out of range. A hospital is (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Then you've probably seen it. I'm still looking for the video, though. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
