Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:59:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
371 times
|
| |
|
|
Pedro Silva wrote:
>
> 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.
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 ask permission to return fire?
What weapons do you have to ask permission to fire on? What targets?
Note that the rules of operation do actually specify when permission
should be asked (note that that came into question in the case of the
accidental bombing of the Canadians in Afganistan - of course that was a
less tense situation, so the rules required asking permission in more
circumstances).
When the Iraq military took to pretending to surrender and then shooting
their captors by surprise, they ratcheted up the situation several
notches. We are showing incredible restraint given that provocation.
> > We must recognize that desperate people take
> > desperate measures.
>
> Was the crew desperate? Or just too hyped up?
I wasn't clear enough here. I'm not saying the US soldiers are
desperate. I'm saying the Iraq soldiers are desperate, and thus have
taken desperate measures, that change the scope of the battle. Now, we
can either accept their reasons for desperation and withdraw, or we can
understand them and reject them, and continue. We have chosen to reject
them.
The Japanese in WW II were almost as desperate (which was one of the
reasons we decided to drop the bomb - people were having visions of
slogging through Japan like slogging through Okinawa [military
historians: I'm thinking Okinawa represents one of the most determined
force ever dealt with in a modern (post WW I) war [over 110k Japanese
killed, over 12k US killed <note that the number of people immediately
killed by the a-bombs was only about 150k, and Okinawa is just a little
island compared to Japan>], Vietnam might come close, but I don't think
we had the same determination on our side to meet them, and thus is hard
to compare]).
> > 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?"
And I'm sure they did.
> > > > 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.
Yup, they're all just buildings. Yes, in war, you try to avoid
non-combatant casualties, but when the choice comes down to you or them,
which would you choose?
> > 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).
The pictures I've seen have shown other tall buildings. I have no idea
how the hotel stacks against the others.
> > > > 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?)
If you have one handy. However, snipers are most effective at taking
their time to shoot from surprise. Returning fire on another sniper is
pretty darned hard (though is has been done). Most snipers are taken out
with much less finesse.
> > 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.
A tank seems pretty well equiped to take out a sniper.
> > 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.
At that moment. My point is, a tank commander needs to spend as much
time "head up" as he can. Snipers make him take cover, and reduce the
effectiveness of the vehicle, and increase it's danger from someone
sneaking up with a grenade.
> > 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 think you severely underestimate how much visibility you have inside a
tank. Taking time doesn't help deal with a fast moving situation. You
can't see enough. Also, please don't try and compare war to a shooting
range. In war, if you shot the guy I was aiming at before I got him, I'd
be pleased.
I would also point out that the reality in war is that almost no shots
are aimed. In fact, there's a lot of science behind how many shots an
M-16 fires with one pull of the trigger (enough that hopefully one of
the bullets will hit close enough to the target to matter, but not so
many that you waste bullets, or worse, most of the bullets you shot go
completely wild because you've lost control of your weapon from the
recoil). You would be amazed at how many bullets are fired per wound
caused.
In any modern war, most wounds are caused by high explosives (grenades,
tank shells, mortar shells, artillery, bombs, etc.).
> > > > 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?)
What do you think we're doing in Iraq? Looks like an invasion to me.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Targets suspected of housing the enemy, but known to house third parties. Regarding the command level, I argue the commander of the tank hadn't got enough information to make that specific decision: he should have been told it was a hotel, and (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
