Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Here is Mr. Fisk asserting that the elaborate claims of the US military through various media are an utter lie.

Whaddya think, folks? There's not a lot of ground for misunderstanding here. SOMEBODY's lying, and whichever party it is deserves to forfeit the confidence of all fair-minded observers. If it's the US military, I will sure as hell ignore what they tell me for the remainder of this decade.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
Coalition forces are sending reinforcements to the capital's international airport which has become the most symbolic gain for the invading forces in the 17-day-old war.

But Iraqi officials said their people were preparing "unconventional" attacks to reconquer the airport, raising the spectre of an urban battle with regular and irregular forces, or possible suicide squads.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919445.stm



By this afternoon, combat engineers were preparing the runways for C-130's -- the big military transport planes. Helicopters could also base here providing more flexibility and support. Clearly, the airport was a critically important target, and the GIs moods reflected just that.

"Can't believe were here. Finally made it. Everybody's kind of unwinding right now. Pressures of stress is off a little bit so we can kind of relax a little bit not too much but pretty much we completed our mission," says Sgt. John Celske.

The 3rd infantry will now get help keeping the airport secure from the 101st airborne. That's just fine with the soldiers of the 3rd. In the race to Baghdad, they are the clear winners, taking the tarmac two weeks after they started their trip.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain547781.shtml

The U.S.-led forces amassing at the city's outskirts, having taken control of the international airport, searched tunnels under it. Marines fought Fedayeen paramilitaries to the south, while some Army forces advanced with little strong opposition.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83196,00.html

there are embedded reporters coming live from there regularly on the news cnn, cbs and fox anyway.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

On Baghdad’s Frontlines
NEWSWEEK’s Kevin Peraino, embedded with the Third Infantry Division, filed this on-scene report on the battle for the Saddam International Airport

By Kevin Peraino
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


April 4 — I’m on the tarmac at Saddam International Airport right now, just outside the Baghdad city limits. The unit I’m with—a Third Infantry Division company of riflemen, Bradley fighting vehicles and tanks—rolled into the airfield in the middle of the night to find some of the strongest resistance that it’s seen so far.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895585.asp?0cv=CA01

that was earlier on the 4rth

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location:
Posts: 2701

Fisk eternally have a stick up his ass. WE need to put him in a cage with John Malkovich.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5154

I don't see how it is possible to figure out who is right without actually being there, although the majority of the news seems to agree with us having captured the airport.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

FIsk is not the only one to say this Chips. ON Thursday when this 'we've captured the airport' story first broke, the BBC were running stories from the airport showing it completely deserted and not a tank in site. I found that interesting, whether the airport is secure now I don't know. There's no way of verifying any of it really.

But FIsk was not certainly not alone in saying the airport was not captured 'on Thursday'. Today is likely different, but the initial story broken on the US networks was counter-acted by a 'live link' on BBC News with a reporter standing on deserted tarmac. COuld have been pre-recorded of course.

Last edited by philjit on 04-05-2003 at 09:12 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

I think the American militaries top priorities are indeed military and the spreading of mis or dis information is an effective tool. If we say X place has been captured at Y time by Z American force than the Iraqis will be able to put those things together and know the approximate location of certain units. This information is of great strategic value to them and can cause them to shift their forces around accordingly. The point is to fool the enemy and get him to shift his forces in a way that is on benefit to you.

I also think that maybe alot of people don't understand exactly how this type of war is waged. Heavy units push as far as they can go, wipe out the most substancial of resistence and move on while lighter units bring up the rear do things like mop up remaining resistence and establish/maintain military infrastructure. The military has often said that a particular place or area has been captured/secured when really what has happened is that the most substancial of known local resistence has been destroyed and said area is still not exactly "secure" or ready for logistical use, but is being phased in as such.

Disinformation or not, I can almost gaurantee that whatever took place at Baghdad International, substancial Iraqi forces will not be able to manuever anywhere close to it or use it in any way while coalition forces will definitely be able to manuever as they please around or within it and use it as they see fit.

This denial of territory/infrastructure to the regime forces and opening of it to coalition forces is likely what they mean by "secure".

Fisk and others are really doing nothing more than nit-picking and trying to turn a psotivie military development into a negative news story. Most would call that grasping at straws.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itch
I think the American militaries top priorities are indeed military and the spreading of mis or dis information is an effective tool.

*snip*

Fisk and others are really doing nothing more than nit-picking and trying to turn a psotivie military development into a negative news story.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itch
I also think that maybe alot of people don't understand exactly how this type of war is waged. Heavy units push as far as they can go, wipe out the most substancial of resistence and move on while lighter units bring up the rear do things like mop up remaining resistence and establish/maintain military infrastructure.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

A skirmish line isn't really nescessary when you have the extremeely extensive recon from the air and space that the US does. What exactly does it mean to "take the airport"? Does it mean that you have it all set up and perfectly secured with your own planes flying in and out or does it mean that you have denied the enemy access to it while being totaly free to access it your self?

Also, you seem to think that we need to tell everyone exactly where we are at a given time so the journalists can go there and tape us there for proof. That would be fucking stupid as it would give away the position of our most forward units to the enemy. Central Command is doing fine with its reports despite peoples odd expectations to know the exact location of forward units.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

What I'm hearing, from pretty much all of you, is that when the US military tells me through the American media that it has taken a location or achieved an objective, I should not believe that the statement is true.

Is this correct? If it is, it's a shameful indictment of the media. I can buy not giving us all the info on where our troops are, but the MINIMUM oibligation they owe is not to publish false info.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
What I'm hearing, from pretty much all of you, is that when the US military tells me through the American media that it has taken a location or achieved an objective, I should not believe that the statement is true.

Is this correct?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location:
Posts: 543

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
What I'm hearing, from pretty much all of you, is that when the US military tells me through the American media that it has taken a location or achieved an objective, I should not believe that the statement is true.

Is this correct? If it is, it's a shameful indictment of the media. I can buy not giving us all the info on where our troops are, but the MINIMUM oibligation they owe is not to publish false info.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

'Secured' implies that the airport is in fact taken, and secured.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10229

since when did anyone take media reports from any source as fact anyway?

the propoganda machine is at work on both sides of the line.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingle
since when did anyone take media reports from any source as fact anyway?

the propoganda machine is at work on both sides of the line.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged