Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Akira

Black Hawk Down

Recommended Posts

See if this topic is done to death already....

Finally saw Black Hawk Down on Monday.

I found it a good movie, somewhat better than I expected. Not necessarily. American patriotic (in my view) but certainly made me appreciate somewhat what all soldiers do.

I was a little surprised that all the reviews I read said it was more violent then Saving Private Ryan. I didn't find it so, except for those few parts of graphic effects of weapons. I still find the beginning and end of SPR, much more violent (or realistic if you want to stay away from the 'negative conotations of "violent").

Movie also made me do some research on the causes of the raid and Clintons policy. I came to the conclusion that I dislike Clinton even more....and Aspin (Sec. of Def.). Their "welcome" when visiting the soldiers injured during the raid was well deserved after reading some of the crappy decisions made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if the movie covered it (havent seen it yet) but at first they planned to hit the building with a LGB and just kill the peeps.. but they decided that the collateral damaged (civs) would be unacceptable so seeing as how they were gonna have to send some troop.. might aswell just capture him.. any enemy is more valuable in yer hands than dead.. what sucks is that they didnt have time to get the stuff they really needed for it.. I.E. more support vehicles/aircraft.. they had to make due with what they had..

just an interesting snippet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that it was Clintons shift in policy and hardline stance against Aidid that made him decide to do the "snatch" operation, even though most of his political advisors advised against it and all his military leaders said it would be a bad idea. All agreed a "diplomatic" solution was needed in this case. In fact the military leaders (including Powell) were quite pissed off when he decided to do it, especially when Aspin rejected the Commander at Mogadishu's request for 4 or 5 tanks and a few Bradleys!

When Aspin visited the hospital finally (it took an angry call from one of the doctors to the White House for ANY of the Clinton administration to even think about going...they all hoped that the American people would "forget" about it), one of the soldiers that was injured (Reirson I think...had his legs blown off and lost most of his hearing and sight) told Aspin "We sure could have used those tanks, sir." I don't even think I would have added the "sir". And one soldier said he wasn't going to take any pictures with Clinton because he didn't want to be the "President Visits Wounded Soldier" propoganda pic....WHILE Clinton was still in the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that it was Clintons shift in policy and hardline stance against Aidid that made him decide to do the "snatch" operation

clinton didnt take the "stance" untill the attacks on US escort troops got REALLY bad.. Powell and all them were against anything on the ground aside from a full blown attack.. they know about the dickheads in pickups and shit.. but clinton didnt want to commit that many troops so they said the only alternative would be an PINPOINT airstrike... but that given the proximity to densley populated areas that collateral damage was unavoidable... clinton didnt want that either..

he was more concerned about how he looked than what he was doing... clinton was a twat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 06 2002,18:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

he was more concerned about how he looked than what he was doing... clinton was a twat.<span id='postcolor'>

Amen...when he wasn't busy shoving cigars up them he was busy being one....

Don't even get me started on his China policy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into the backgroung to US policy and the various screw ups in both policy and planning. Simply I thought it was a pretty good film, it didn't fall into jingoism which had been my main fear.

Sadly I don't think it actually said anything at the end of the day which is probably the worst I can say about it. If Ridly Scott thought he was making any kind of statement with the film then he failed. If however his intention was simply to make an intelligent action picture then I'd say he was succesful. Either way I thought it was pretty well done though my favourite part was probably the music. Damn good soundtrack album.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sent this article by a friend who's father is in the Navy. Thought you all might like to read it. But before anyone flames me.. I'm not necessarily agreeing with this article, I'm just posting it so you can all read it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

--------------------------

Both saviour and victim

Black Hawk Down creates a new and dangerous myth of American

nationhood

George Monbiot

Tuesday January 29, 2002

The Guardian

The more powerful a nation becomes, the more it asserts its victimhood. In contemporary British eyes, the greatest atrocities of the 18th and 19th centuries were those perpetrated on compatriots in the Black Hole of Calcutta or during the Indian mutiny and the siege

of Khartoum. The extreme manifestations of the white man's burden, these events came to symbolise the barbarism and ingratitude of the savage races the British had sought to rescue from their darkness.

Today the attack on New York is discussed as if it were the worst thing to have happened to any nation in recent times. Few would deny that it was a major atrocity, but we are required to offer the American people a unique and exclusive sympathy. Now that demand is being extended to earlier American losses.

Black Hawk Down looks set to become one of the bestselling movies of all time. Like all the films the British-born director Ridley Scott has made, it is gripping, intense and beautifully shot. It is also a stunning misrepresentation of what happened in Somalia.

In 1992 the United States walked into Somalia with good intentions. George Bush senior announced that America had come to do "God's work" in a nation devastated by clan warfare and famine. But, as Scott Peterson's firsthand account Me Against My Brother shows, the mission was doomed by intelligence failures, partisan deployments and, ultimately, the belief that you can bomb a nation into peace and

prosperity.

Before the US government handed over the administration of Somalia to the United Nations in 1993, it had already made several fundamental mistakes. It had backed the clan chiefs Mohamed Farah Aideed and Ali Mahdi against another warlord, shoring up their power just as it had started to collapse. It had failed to recognise that the competing clan chiefs were ready to accept large-scale disarmament, if it were carried out impartially. Far from resolving the conflict between the

clans, the US accidentally enhanced it.

After the handover, the UN's Pakistani peacekeepers tried to seize Aideed's radio station, which was broadcasting anti-UN propaganda. The raid was bungled, and 25 of the soldiers were killed by Aideed's supporters. A few days later, Pakistani troops fired on an unarmed

crowd, killing women and children. The United Nations force, commanded by a US admiral, was drawn into a blood feud with Aideed's militia.

As the feud escalated, US special forces were brought in to deal with the man now described by American intelligence as "the Hitler of Somalia". Aideed, who was certainly a ruthless and dangerous man but also just one of several clan leaders competing for power in the

country, was blamed for all Somalia's troubles. The UN's peacekeeping mission had been transformed into a partisan war.

The special forces, over-confident and hopelessly ill-informed, raided, in quick succession, the headquarters of the UN development programme, the charity World Concern and the offices of Médecins sans Frontieres. They managed to capture, among scores of innocent

civilians and aid workers, the chief of the UN's police force. But farce was soon repeated as tragedy. When some of the most senior members of Aideed's clan gathered in a building in Mogadishu to discuss a peace agreement with the United Nations, the US forces,

misinformed as ever, blew them up, killing 54 people. Thus they succeeded in making enemies of all the Somalis. The special forces were harried by gunmen from all sides. In return, US troops in the UN compound began firing missiles at residential areas.

So the raid on one of Aideed's buildings on October 3 1993, which led to the destruction of two Black Hawk helicopters and the deaths of 18 American soldiers, was just another round of America's grudge match with the warlord. The troops who captured Aideed's officials were

attacked by everyone: gunmen came even from the rival militias to avenge the deaths of the civilians the Americans had killed. The US special forces, with an understandable but ruthless regard for their own safety, locked Somali women and children into the house in which they were besieged.

Ridley Scott says that he came to the project without politics, which is what people often say when they subscribe to the dominant point of view. The story he relates (with the help of the US department of

defence and the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff) is the story the American people need to tell themselves.

The purpose of the raid on October 3, Black Hawk Down suggests, was to prevent Aideed's murderous forces from starving Somalia to death. No hint is given of the feuding between him and the UN, other than the initial attack on the Pakistani peacekeepers. There is no

recognition that the worst of the famine had passed, or that the US troops had long ceased to be part of the solution. The US hostage-taking, even the crucial role played by Malaysian soldiers in the Rangers' rescue, have been excised from the record. Instead - and

since September 11 this has become a familiar theme - the attempt to capture Aideed's lieutenants was a battle between good and evil, civilisation and barbarism.

The Somalis in Black Hawk Down speak only to condemn themselves. They display no emotions other than greed and the lust for blood. Their appearances are accompanied by sinister Arab techno, while the US

forces are trailed by violins, oboes and vocals inspired by Enya. The American troops display horrific wounds. They clutch photos of their loved ones and ask to be remembered to their parents or their children as they die. The Somalis drop like flies, killed cleanly, dispensable, unmourned.

Some people have compared Black Hawk Down to the British film Zulu. There is some justice in the comparison, but the Somalis here offer a far more compelling personification of evil than the blundering,

belligerent Zulus. They are sinister, deceitful and inscrutable; more like the British caricature of the Chinese during the opium wars.

What we are witnessing in both Black Hawk Down and the current war against terrorism is the creation of a new myth of nationhood. America is casting itself simultaneously as the world's saviour and

the world's victim; a sacrificial messiah, on a mission to deliver the world from evil. This myth contains incalculable dangers for

everyone else on earth.

To discharge its sense of unique grievance, the US government has hinted at what may become an asymmetric world war. It is no coincidence that Somalia comes close to the top of the list of nations it may be prepared to attack. This war, if it materialises, will be led not by the generals in their bunkers, but by the people

who construct the story the nation chooses to believe.

www.monbiot.com

----------------------------------

His contacts in the military concur that the movie "Black Hawk Down" is utter rubbish in terms of its representation of the situation. Amongst the comments made was to note that when the SEALS came ashore to seize what they had been told was an enemy-held and hostile coast they were met on the beach by a horde of international media complete with arc lights, video cameras and shouted journalists questions. The publicity had been organised at the highest level for publicity purposes. Apparently the U.S. operations were such a shambles that Australia declined to extend use of Australian soldiers there

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is kinda wrong,why was the US there ? To feed the people.UN food supplies were in trouble because they attacked them and took the food so they could feed their own soldiers.If there was no trouble then the UN would still be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today the attack on New York is discussed as if it were the worst thing to have happened to any nation in recent times

typical "ive seen worse, so what with this, people die every day" attitude

order of events:

1:the US did not "go" to somalie.. it did not walk in.. it was REQUESTED by NATO that SOMEBODY go because the aid orginizations were having their food supply intercepted and taken by the warlord and other riffraff and it wasnt getting to the people who needed it... they were starving to death.. people refused to drive the trucks anymore because it was too dangerous.

2: the US had the largest force in the area suited to go in and protect the convoys on such short notice.. so the US went.. if GB would have had the needed stuff there it would have been them going.. but they had their stuff elseware at the time as fate would have it.  lightley armed US troops began escorting the convoys..

3: the warlord ORDERED that insted of targeting the food, that now they should target the US troops.. and so they did.. attacks ensued..

4: the US had enough and decided it was time to quit trying to put a bandaid on the broken leg that was the criminal element.. I.E. quit trying to get past it, and insted eliminate it once and for all.

5: airstrike was discussed, but since the US was there NOT as an army force and that if any civilians got killed it would would be bad for relations and for the UN and NATO..

6: large scale ground attack was discussed.. but again, since the US was there NOT as an army putting lots of troops on the ground would look less like an attempt at securing peace and more like an invasion.. despite its good intention many would not see it that way.

7: an Somali informant told the US that many high up warloard types were meeting on how to further cripple the US forces in the region.. logically an attack was planned and carried out.. later it was discovered that they meeting was was going to be an attempt for some members of the warlords inner party to try convince adieed(sp) to try and work with the US.. but the informant didnt tell this and to assume such a thing in NO WAY fit the pattern of behavior that had been preasent.. so there was no reason to imagine that was the case..

8: the attacks pisses everyone off (duh)..

9: another informant tells the US that a major group in higher ups and possably the head honch himself are meeting in a buildig at a give time.. a very short time.... not enough time to get the proper equiptment for this type of operation into the area and spun up to get ready.. but nobody was gonna wait and this was a 1 time oppertunity... us intelegence on the ground sees the people enter the building the informant referred to.

10: the operation is launched.

youve seen the rest on the screen.

sorry.. but its pretty much that simple.. no big conspiricy to get bill gats a lap dance, no flying elephants.. no plot to rape elvis and the loch ness monster..  simple 1+1=2

I know thats not as fun.. sorry

some people say "well the US had an agenda".. well lets look at part of the Agenda the US was going against:

Agenda:

A: let people starve to death.

B: prevent anyone from helping them.

which agenda would you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wobble, since you seem to know, why did the warlords want to starve out their own people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Wobble, its a typical reporters article isn't it... A guy, who has probably never seen combat, let alone been IN the forces giving his civilian opinion about something which more than likely happened while he was a teenager or kid.

You can open the paper and see it all the time. The only truth you ever get about a war is from the people fighting in it.. not the politicians. Not the Top brass... not the reporters... but the soldiers slogging it out on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wobble, since you seem to know, why did the warlords want to starve out their own people?

There was a MASSIVE famine throughout that whole region, food was scarce.. so EVERYONE was for want of food.. the warlords had the means by which to TAKE as much of it as they wanted.. after alll they had to eat too.. they had their little army/group/whatever to feed.. and so they took the food that was destined to be doled out for everyone (or well as many as that amount could feed)..   and of course when the US started guarding this food they couldent take it as easy..

basically they ALL needed food.. but the warlords decided it was best for them to take ALL of it for themselves and their people and for the rest.. well too bad.

furthermore one of the warlord MAJOR source of men was the famine.... starving young men see the soldiers/members of the warlords eating well and want to join... so the warloads figured that if the US succeded and the food was given out to EVERYONE then food would no longer be a reason to join the warlord's "army"..  and with the amount of shit they were up to even before the US showed up they were losing men a quite a rate.. in just basic piss contest and internal fighting.. so they needed a steady supply of fresh men to maintain their force and thus their territory and keep up their attacks on their enemies etc etc.. and FOOD was the major reason (at the time) for joining,  it was either Join and eat, or stay out and starve.. and the US threatend to upset that by protecting the food...  basically they needed soldiers and food.. and the food was the #1 way to get the soldiers. . so basically all their power hinged on them being in total control of all the food in the region.

Well Wobble, its a typical reporters article isn't it... A guy, who has probably never seen combat, let alone been IN the forces giving his civilian opinion about something which more than likely happened while he was a teenager or kid.

You can open the paper and see it all the time. The only truth you ever get about a war is from the people fighting in it.. not the politicians. Not the Top brass... not the reporters... but the soldiers slogging it out on the ground.

i agree totally.. everyone knows that war is not pretty.. but some people just dont know how bad it really is.. in LOTS of situations there is NO right answer, no perfect plan, no clean way.. sometimes you have do things you dont morally agree with to accomplish the better good.. and thats just the way war is.. war is far to complex for a black/white right/wrong.. in very few circumstances will there be a totally perfect 100% right way to do something.. there are always tradeoffs... eggs must be broken when making an omlet as they say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allright. Next question, why did hordes of civilians rush in to try and take out the Americans if indeed the Americans were doing good deeds? I mean, there was not only militia men attacking them, there were women and children to.

Did they come for the soldiers fieldrations or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allright. Next question, why did hordes of civilians rush in to try and take out the Americans if indeed the Americans were doing good deeds? I mean, there was not only militia men attacking them, there were women and children to.

Did they come for the soldiers fieldrations or what?

you have to rewmember 99% of these people dont have TV or even a radio.. all they know is what they are told.. and the warlords controlled the media.. so they were told ALL KINDS of ungodley things.. like that the US was coming to force them into a religion, or to enslave them.. all kinds of crazy shit!

just like in WW2.. the japanese purposley told the civs that the allies would rape and torture all civilians and to either die fighting or kill themselves.. and seeing as how that was the ONLY source of info they ever had.. they believed it.

many of these people didnt even know people were trying to get food to them, they were told the americans were invading and were gonna kill them all.. they had no idea the US was trying to protect food that was FOR THEM.. all they knew is what they were told.. and that was "the americans are coming and their going to kill you"

I like yer sig BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 11 2002,08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Allright. Next question, why did hordes of civilians rush in to try and take out the Americans if indeed the Americans were doing good deeds? I mean, there was not only militia men attacking them, there were women and children to.

Did they come for the soldiers fieldrations or what?<span id='postcolor'>

also that helis flew low and blew their tin roof off,which made them also upset.

about the japanese thing,they also said americans would eat their babies/kids,soo they threw the kids off the cliff and they jumped also, when usa soldiers got close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foxer, I doubt helicopters blowing off tin roofs is enough motivation for children and women to run straight in to gunfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well long before the US set foot over there these people were being cultivated to hate the west.. actually at the very very beginning the somalies (the people not the warlords) WELCOMED the US... but as soon as the US started cutting blunting attempts to steal food the goverment launched its propagant campaign.. filling the ear of all who would listen about how the US is here to force christianity on them and that those who dont renounce allah would be murdered..etc etc..  then when those apaches blew the shit out of that building full of the warlords top leaders it was just enough to make the shit they were saying believeable... thats when the shit REALLY hit the fan... after that all UN and NATO and US were the enemy of the people... the people being a brainwashed mob ala WW2 Japan.

children and women to run straight in to gunfire.

that was some sad shit right there.. they would shoot a guy.. he would drop his gun and somebody else would run out to get it.. they would shoot them... eventually there would literally be a mound of bodies surrounding a single weapon.. and some were children and women... but hey.. if its gonna shoot you, you had better shoot it

actually at first the children and women would run out into the open and pick up the gun.. and take it to the next guy. who was behind a corner.. but after seeing this happen time and time again the tough decision was made that they had to shoot the people running out to get the guns... it sucks but ya have to do it...  once the somalies notice the US was shooting anyone grabbing a gun they quit trying that and the women and kids just picked up the gun and fired themselves...

the somalies knew the US had a big thing against shooting women and children.. so they used them in that way.. creeps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What we are witnessing in both Black Hawk Down and the current war against terrorism is the creation of a new myth of nationhood. America is casting itself simultaneously as the world's saviour and the world's victim; a sacrificial messiah, on a mission to deliver the world from evil. This myth contains incalculable dangers for everyone else on earth.<span id='postcolor'>

Quite nicely put. Brings to my mind the phrase: "Heaven help us all, when the wounded giant starts flailing out blindly." wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

figures that you would like it.

What we are witnessing in both Black Hawk Down and the current war against terrorism is the creation of a new myth of nationhood. America is casting itself simultaneously as the world's saviour and the world's victim; a sacrificial messiah, on a mission to deliver the world from evil. This myth contains incalculable dangers for everyone else on earth.

man, whoever wrote this is so full of shit... I dont care who they "say" it came from.. this is the work of a disgruntled desk jocky who probably thinks they know about war because they study politics...  

furthermore the entire "paper" absolutley wreaks of a totally biased anti-US mentality... you can tell its written by the typical US hater like we see on here so oftin.. one of those who will never be peased.. because if the US does it it cant be right.. etc etc etc.. what a twat

reading this reminds me of the Iraq press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh jesus christ you should see the site that puts this shit out www.monbiot.com  tale about rampant propaganda!!

here are their other topics:

The End of the Enlightenment

A new, repressive form of government is emerging from the West's military triumph.

The Corporate Takeover of Childhood

Schools are being privatised in order to develop a new export industry.

Both Saviour and Victim

The film Black Hawk Down is helping to create a new myth of American nationhood, which threatens everyone on earth

^^ article posted above.. yup as always the US is threatening the world.

the guy who writes this shit isnt a soldier, he isnt even into politics... hes a fucking "novelist"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He has been involved in protests against road building, mahogany imports and genetic engineering. He helped to found the landrights campaign The Land is Ours.

<span id='postcolor'>

yup.. we dont want any of that road building shit.. thats howm people start wandering around!

this guy is some jerkoff with nothing better to do than try and slander things he does not like... he obviousley hats Britian and the US..

His contacts in the military concur that the movie "Black Hawk Down" is utter rubbish in terms of its representation of the situation

funny that every single military person both US and abroad that know about what happened and have seen the movie says that it very much sticks to the events in an almost documentery fasion.. I wander what his "contact" is.. a majic 8 ball perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFLOL!! oh wait.. it gets better!!

he also knows when the world is going to end!

You're all damned!

The devil will walk amongst you, with great wrath

oh and to top it all off!

The Pope Spreads AIDS

The Holy Father is responsible for the deaths of thousands

another wonderful topic:

Britain's Ethnic Cleansing

Gypsy culture is being systematically eliminated through a forced assimilation programme

A Pox on the Planet

Golf course development is becoming one of the major threats to the environment and human rights.

god knows the last time a golf course knocked on my door, called me a cracker and then drove off in a car that ran on cole..

Crossing the Species Barrier

We desperately need a public debate about xenotransplantation

wow, I was just thinking that tounge.gif

The UK's Nuclear Terrorists

The British Government is increasing the dangers of nuclear proliferation

you guys behave!

Secret Dumping

Britain's hidden nuclear crisis is beginning to resemble Russia's

man this guy hates GB more than the US it seems.

Life in the Balance Sheet

Corporations in Britain get away with murder

good god..

ya see its shit like this.. semoe people read this shit and believe it... according to this guy the US.. and even MORE SO GB is the anti-christ (i think he literally says that too)

this guy is a Grade A+, dyed in the woll, 110% pure homogonized FUCK BALL

good god.. if you dont minde the pictured of dead bodies that spackle his webpage background som of his articles are quite... entertaining..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"His contacts in the military concur that the movie "Black Hawk Down" is utter rubbish in terms of its representation of the situation

funny that every single military person both US and abroad that know about what happened and have seen the movie says that it very much sticks to the events in an almost documentery fasion.. I wander what his "contact" is.. a majic 8 ball perhaps?"

In all honesty I think that refers to the events that went down before the Black Hawk Down incident, and not necesserily only the events during the fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm glad I gave you a laugh by posting that Wobble... I thought VERY similar things when I went to that website and viewed the other works biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×