Hacker News Reader

Comment by wiradikusuma | Hacker News Reader

"Parts of the hotel were able to re-open two months after the attack" — what?

Curious, what would be the logical explanation for that? I mean, for starters nobody would want to work there, and nobody would want to _stay_ there. Right?

View on HN

In hot conflict areas some hotels are usually used to house people who are still having to go about their business. Such as airline pilots, journalists, ngo people etc... usually the fact that the hotel is being used for such purpose is common knowledge and there is some sort of extra military protection given. Of course this can also backfire as depending on the multiple interests of the factions involved in the conflict it can be in their interest to attack, ignore, or defend such buildings...in the case of this hotel in particular it had already been attacked in 2011 before this attack described in the article (which happened in 2018). You can read more about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Inter-Continental_Kabul

There's an old story (that I can't find right now) about a bank employee that falls for a scam that costs the company hundreds of thousands. He goes to his boss and says "I guess you will be expecting my resignation", to which the boss replies "Resign? I just spent thousands of dollars training you!".

I would apply the same line of thought here: I don't think this hotel is any more insecure that any other. In fact, I would expect it to have more security than the others from now on.

I understand the emotional point - it's pretty much the same point that Chris Rock made about renaming the new Twin Towers the "Never going in there tower". But I can totally see the hotel making a comeback - if Charlie Hebdo is still in business, I don't see why the hotel can't follow the same steps.

It seems to be a popular target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Inter-Continental_Hotel_K...

This makes no sense. Even the bank boss is a fool. Someone who falls for one scam once, isn't automatically never going to fall for a different scam ever again. It might be because they are always in a hurry to approve things, or gullible. You don't get rid of those traits with one lesson.

The reason they still use the hotel, is that there are not a lot of hotels in the area. This is not NY city.

I think (but maybe it is only a duplicate) that you may be thinking at this story about Tom Watson (IBM):

http://www.mbiconcepts.com/watson-sr-and-thoughtful-mistakes...

The one I remember was definitely about a scam, but I have no doubt that it was a rehash of similar stories in the past. Yours is probably the original, which is even better.

The hotel still needs to make money, so getting it open as quickly as possible even after a horrific incident is important for the bottom line of the company that runs it.

Fix all the damage, put up a plaque or other memorial to the victims, and then move forward.

This may seem harsh, but economic interests don't permanently go away when disasters happen.

Late stage capitalism everybody

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said.

Honest question - when should any business or organization re-open after a tragedy happens on it's grounds? I doubt that the answer is "never".

I was a regular at the JW Marriott in Jakarta after it was bombed in 2003, and so was my boss, who was actually in the hotel at the time of the attack. In addition to being an excellent hotel, they also took security very seriously, unlike the security theater put on by most of their competition. And besides, lightning won't strike twice, right?

Only problem is, they were bombed again in 2009, this time with the help of a staff insider...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JW_Marriott_Jakarta

Afghanistan has been at war since 1978. The Kabul Intercontinental Hotel was partially destroyed by shelling in the 1990s. It was attacked by suicide bombers in 2011, then again by gunmen in 2018. That's completely typical for a landmark building in Kabul.

If the Afghan people abandoned everywhere that had been the scene of an atrocity, there would be few places left to go.

Moreover, Inter-Continental was already attacked 7 years before, in 2011. [0] If you agree to a job in an unstable place like Kabul as an outsider, you already accept some risk. You have to stay somewhere, and there might not be many safer places to stay.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Inter-Continental_Hotel_K...

Reminds me of Clerks and the Death Star contractors, though this line of thinking has scary implications for working in the World Trade Center, any federal building, or Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

The Intercontinental and the Serena are the main hotels that house journalists, pilots and aid workers. They have both been attacked multiple times.

If you need to travel to Kabul, as many people do, there are no truly safe options. Both hotels are beautiful and well guarded. They are also high-profile targets.

If your employer doesn't have access to a lower-profile private compound with private security then you are going to the Serena or the Intercontinental.

Hotels work (and get customers) in all kinds of hot zones...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com