Battle Of Samara - 7 Helicopters Downed, 147 Troops Killed

Originally posted by keholmes

Somalia is an excellent example why this story is a steaming pile, 18 kia and it was all over the news within hours of the start.

Seems like politicians learned their lesson from that: Don't show severe war violence on the news.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by keholmes

Somalia is an excellent example why this story is a steaming pile, 18 kia and it was all over the news within hours of the start.

Seems like politicians learned their lesson from that: Don't show severe war violence on the news.

finally i thought that they might have learned it after WW2, Korea, VT, Gulf War 1....but now they have it right, right? you think, maybe?

Just a quick point: My 'cheap insult' was intended to prove a point...namely that anyone can say whatever they want if they don't bother to prove what they are saying. I am not a racist and the joke I made was intended to be so clearly sarcastic that anyone who read it would know that i was trying to demonstrate how anyone can say whatever nasty thing they want if it isn't backed up by evidence that can be examined.

I was basically trying to mock zcheng's BS by imitating its clearly dishonest style.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I do not see a link.

And the fact that these numbers come from the "resistance" should tell you something.

Iraqi "resistance" AKA terrorists are about as reliable as CENTCOM when it comes to reporting.

Please stop equating the entire Iraqi resistance with terrorism. Its one of the quickest ways to brand yourself as either lazy, or dishonest.

Thanks,

U.

Originally posted by upuaut

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I do not see a link.

And the fact that these numbers come from the "resistance" should tell you something.

Iraqi "resistance" AKA terrorists are about as reliable as CENTCOM when it comes to reporting.

Please stop equating the entire Iraqi resistance with terrorism. Its one of the quickest ways to brand yourself as either lazy, or dishonest.

Thanks,

U.

yea, some are clearly serial killers, jeez skadi you should know better. next time say 80% terrorists and 20% serial killers.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes

finally i thought that they might have learned it after WW2, Korea, VT, Gulf War 1....but now they have it right, right? you think, maybe?

WW1: Censored - Won
WW2: Censored - Won
Korea: Censored - Won
Vietnam: Uncensored - Lost
Gulf War 1: Censored - Won
Somalia: Uncensored - Lost
Gulf War 2: Censored... Lost?

zcheng's sources certainly do not carry any sort of weight.

But then again, casualty reports from the US military don't carry much weight in my eyes either.

As OddFellow pointed out, we are dealing with events beyond our direct perception, and those who triumphantly proclaim they know for certain what transpired haven't even started down the road that leads to the truth of the matter.

I remember well the time a US stealth plane was downed in Yugoslavia. The US denied the event repeatedly until it couldn't anymore.

Its about as foolish to believe Zcheng's report as it is to believe the US military's.

U.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by upuaut]

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by keholmes

finally i thought that they might have learned it after WW2, Korea, VT, Gulf War 1....but now they have it right, right? you think, maybe?

WW1: Censored - Won
WW2: Censored - Won
Korea: Censored - Won
Vietnam: Uncensored - Lost
Gulf War 1: Censored - Won
Somalia: Uncensored - Lost
Gulf War 2: Censored... Lost?

Well I could be wrong but I thought that ww2 local newspapers issued casualties. Gulf war 1 I clearly remember lists of the few casualties. gulf 2 so far there seems to be pretty close reporting of casualties. So I guess I�m not really sure what your driving at?

Originally posted by keholmes
yea, some are clearly serial killers, jeez skadi you should know better. next time say 80% terrorists and 20% serial killers.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by keholmes]

You are displaying about as much descriminating faculties as the terrorists who consider all Americans to be guilty of the crimes of our government.

Peas from the same pod: you both see this world in 1 bit Black and White. Maybe you deserve each other.

Meanwhile, innocent people are getting killed in your wake.

U.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by upuaut]

U,
Would that be the terrorist insurgents or the terrorist terrorists? Innocent insurgents, hmmmm what was that......... discriminating facilities, you think, maybe?

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by keholmes

finally i thought that they might have learned it after WW2, Korea, VT, Gulf War 1....but now they have it right, right? you think, maybe?

WW1: Censored - Won
WW2: Censored - Won
Korea: Censored - Won
Vietnam: Uncensored - Lost
Gulf War 1: Censored - Won
Somalia: Uncensored - Lost
Gulf War 2: Censored... Lost?

Well I could be wrong but I thought that ww2 local newspapers issued casualties. Gulf war 1 I clearly remember lists of the few casualties. gulf 2 so far there seems to be pretty close reporting of casualties. So I guess I�m not really sure what your driving at?

Well it's quite simple, my friend. When journalists want to work with the US military, they do so under under terms of agreements, or TOAs. If the journalists want the protection of the military, they abide by the TOAs. If they violate the TOAs, they get kicked out of country. Or, they can freelance and take the risks.

For example, you've probably heard of the 'press pools' that are created during armed conflicts. If they want to be in the press pool, they have to abide by the TOAs that the military provides. These TOAs can be quite liberal or quite constrictive. The press also self-censors itself depending on how the public reacts to pro, or anti-military sentiment, and how the reporters' bosses want to portraty the story.

Essentially, the TOAs for the pools during the Gulf War were very restrictive. The government cleared certain stories and certain types of interviews with military personell. This was not done during Vietnam or Somalia. The TOAs the military imposes can have a strong effect of public opinion of the military.

Now, having stated that, keep in mind that TOAs are often good things. The fact is, most of the time, bad news sells better than good news, and while the idea that all reporters are American-hating commies is a bit blown up, there are some reporters who try for emotional stories about the US military. My former boss witnessed reporters paying GIs in Vietnam to cut the ears off corpses so he could take a picture, for example.

So, very strict TOAs for press pools, combined with media self-censorship, combined with media companies owned by war-related industries, such as NBC being owned by GE, can put a very clean image on a war. Part of the mystique of WW2 being a good, clean war comes no doubt from the censorship involved in that war. Pictures of US casualties rarely hit newsprint. Vietnam, where there were essentially no TOAs, showed lots of US dead. Think of the impression of WW2 and Vietnam. Each is distinct, largely because of what the public witnessed through the media.

The situation with 18 Rangers killed in Somalia would not have been an issue if people had not witnessed the Somalis dragging dead US troops through the streets.

t,

Well I�m still unsure what you are driving at because from what I remember of the explanations of the TOA they did not restrict casualty counts just certain kinds of information�.are you trying to say that they are somehow fudging the numbers if so how come they didn�t do it in gulf 1?

And I always cringe when people start something out with its really simple�.generally that means they haven�t thought about it for very long�.that said I can see that is not the case here. However, you�re WW2 and Vietnam assessments are way too simple for me to buy, there were a lot of contributing factors and to just ignore them and say�.ah-ha the press that is why blah, blah

And in Somalia those were freelancers.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by keholmes]

Well I did explain WW2 and Vietnam situations with the media and public reaction.

Generally casualty counts aren't really the issue. For example the situation with the 18 Rangers in Somalia. The fact that 18 guys were killed wasn't what made an impression on the public - it was the graphic detail. It's the whole 1000 words situation. People are highly influenced by visuals.

"you will be incurable because you always live in your fantasy world." zcheng pg 3

Hmmmmmm, me living in a fantasy world........



[edit on 4-10-2004 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by zcheng
U.S dead.................................................144
Humvees........................14
Bradley Fv....................... 1
Amphibious..................... 1
APCs.............................. 6
Fighting Vehicles.............. 7
Abrams Tanks................. 9
Apache Helicopters........... 2
Cobra Helicopters............ 2
Blackhawk Heli................. 2

Remember the US has to take now Sadr City, Falluja, Tikrit, Mosul and 2-3 other cities as well. In total 6 cities. It will mean the following losses (if it will go in the same way):
864 guys
36 Abrams
12 Apaches
2 Cobras
2 Blackhawks

Ye, please keep personal attacks out of this thread.

If you cannot, please refer to the terms&conditions of this board.

Abusive language will not be tolerated.

I doubt the attacks went as the enemy claims, and I doubt it went as the US claims. The numbers are somewhere in between most likely.

Notice how the military is resorting to body counts to measure progress. This is not a good sign, because it is not a measure of progress whatsoever.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by upuaut

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I do not see a link.

And the fact that these numbers come from the "resistance" should tell you something.

Iraqi "resistance" AKA terrorists are about as reliable as CENTCOM when it comes to reporting.

Please stop equating the entire Iraqi resistance with terrorism. Its one of the quickest ways to brand yourself as either lazy, or dishonest.

Thanks,

U.

yea, some are clearly serial killers, jeez skadi you should know better. next time say 80% terrorists and 20% serial killers.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by keholmes]

How about 5% terrorists, 10% insurgents and 85% the people of Iraq trying to get their country back. Is that really that hard to believe.

And before you ask for proof, I want proof that Insugent deaths ARE insurgents and I want proof that Terrorists ARE Terrorists. How do we know they are not just The people fighting back? How do they prove this.

I know for a fact that if one of my family was killed accidentally or not, I would want revenge.

Originally posted by goregrinder
Ye, please keep personal attacks out of this thread.

If you cannot, please refer to the terms&conditions of this board.

Abusive language will not be tolerated.

Excuse me, who are you talking to? Did I attack anyone?
Please for future write who are you talking to OK?

Originally posted by esdad71
KEHolmes, maybe you should stop watching Discovery and talk to someone who may have actually been in a spec ops unit. I did not say all, I said some. Is your mind that closed? You do not walk in the recruiters office off the street and join afroce recoin unit in 3 months. THere are multiple criteria and many standards to be met before onee is considered, let alone accepted to any sepecial operations trainging in any military branch.. Please give me a little credit that I may know what I am talking about, cool?There are many operations our gov't has that we as a general public no nothing about from drug ops in central/south america to the covert ops in the Phillipines,Africa ,etc. I read non-fiction books not hte walls of your local bar...

I'll give you no credit what so ever, as you have no idea what you are talking about. KEHolmes is correct, you are not. Perhaps you should stop reading the fiction you find on the book store shelves and actually talk to someone who is or has been in the military. Better yet, go sign up yourself. Then you can talk out of experience instead of, well, somewhere else...