>>I think the original point was that soldiers were either purposefully or ignorantly destroying these "paving stones". Secondly, to call them paving stones is to seriously undervalue the historical and archaeological significance of the artifacts in question.
>
>That was not what I got out of the articles I found. There was nowhere else for the tanks to go. Through the structures or the gardens themselves. That would have been better? Secondly, I wasn't the one who started referring to them as "paving stones." Message 1128057 did that.

Fair enough. If there was nowhere to go then there was nowhere to go. Thats collateral damage then.