Well, I think Lean was using that scene to really hammer home the idea of Lawrence (the movie version) descending into madness and egomania. It's interesting how the scene is so close to a straight depiction of the true events, but small tweaks added such a different meaning.
As far as the Turkish atrocities, I wonder if the depiction of the dead village had to be toned down to meet the standards of the day. Personally, I thought the blowing scarf and the upright sword were pretty powerful...
The scene between Feisal and the reporter is one of my favorites; especially the "with me, it is merely good manners" line...
I originally thought about this.
But you could still have had a scene where there is a terrified child that is apparently dying, giving the expressions as described in the book. It is possible to do that in such a way as to it tastefully and not have lots of blood as part of the scene.
But even more important was the description by Lawrence that it was not easy to defeat this Turkish column. There were some positions that were very well defended, and it was unclear if they would be defeated and and allow the advance on Damascus.
Where the movie strays is that Lawrence says that he did have to fight one of the two columns, and that he chose to go around the column of 4 thousand Turkish soldiers and take on the column of 2 thousand soldiers.
The key point from my perspective is that unless you read both the previous several chapter and the chapter where the No Prisoners action takes place. But in the previous chapter, Lawrence said that the Howeitat did not take prisoners. So the book makes for some gray lines the movie does not depict...
The chapters in question are only a few pages long each. It is just how the book is written.
It is probably an important literary work, as the events in the book helped to shape the Middle East as we know it today, to some extent. So this book and the other one by Lawrence might be work the time spent reading...