Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:40:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
256 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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*.
There is more than one way to take an objective. This approach, if proven
too hard, could be abandoned for a better one.
> 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.
That situation you refer as possible would present an interesting
possibility: to wait, out of range. A hospital is not self sufficient - so
the snipers would have to move eventually - the civilians would not be
killed outright (or risk it) in a fierce fight.
> 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.
One way to identify non-combatants is the absence of armament; true that one
*combatant* may not be carrying armament, but then again his threat is only
potential and can be dealt with as such.
> 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.
Assuming it is so, which shell: armor piercing, or explosive? The difference
is in the area around the target that is hit. Remember, the two reporters
killed were in different rooms. If a spotter was to be hit, why hit
unsuspecting people around him too?
> 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.
The tank can use the boxing tactic and move around. It's a lot more
complicated to hit a moving target, isn't it? I know a tank isn't exactly
easy to move around, but it can fall back and later advance from another angle.
> > > 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.
As you can understand from all I've been saying, I disagree.
But I will accept this to be a matter of oppinion, and quit my complains (as
if they cared anyway, now that the harm is done)
> > 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.
What's so awkward in having binoculars to observe a war from "outside"? How
many of the reporters in the hotel do you think have them? It's not odd at
all, given the distance towards most of the buildings in town.
> 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.
Fall back a bit.
Infantry in the other bank (there is more than one bridge), entering the
hotel. Two men go up. A few bullets, or even a hand grenade. Problem dealt
with (and think of the media coverage for such a spectacularly precise
operation!)
Proceed forward again with the tanks. Carry on the ops.
Or, even better, approach from the hotel's side of the river. It is
possible, IIRC there was one division coming in the city that way.
But that's just how I'd do it. IF, of course, I had put myself in a position
where I'd have to do it at all.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Not too hard: too slow. Shells are dropping. Mortars require a spotter. As I said, there are circumstances where you can't shilly-shally (delay, stall, avoid positive action). Oops! Just lost B company, maybe we can make a group decision, show (...) (21 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
