Black Hawk Down - American propaganda?

[CopperGoat]

Hi everyone, today in my civics class, we started watching Black Hawk Down. I was just wondering, has anyone here seen the movie? And if they have, is the story accurate? Did the warlord guy in the movie kill civilians that were trying to get food from the red cross? And why would the warlord be there in the first place? And also, is this American Propaganda or is it a real historical accurate story, that explains maybe one thing that American Army tried to do something positive, instead of something bad. Opinons please.

[hazard]

its ALL propaganda

hardly anything coming out of hollywood these days isn't

the tricky part is making sure all facets of the propaganda agree with one another. so the movie is simply portraying the story that was printed by the media which was given to them by the state department which, finally, is dominated by the ultra rich, capitalist elite ruling class. the movie, then, is an accurate depiction of the story that MOST people believe to be true.

as for the true truth, its probably lost forever

[Dirty Jersey]

whatever it was that movie was the shit. i read the book. there might have been some propaganda but i know for sure that two army delta guys got medals of honor posthumously awarded to them. in fact one of their (Seargent Randy Shughart) fathers insulted president clinton for how he handled the whole situation stating that he was 'not fit to be commander in chief'. but i guess it must be all propaganda since hazard was in mogadishu when it all happened.

[CopperGoat]

Alright, so in 1993, in Somalia, in that city. The US/ UN were trying to help and give aid, but the warlord stopped them. Why did the warlord stop them? And why was he there in the first place. Another question, why were the civilians against the US/ UN when it tried to give them aid?

i really need help on these, we saw more of the movie today. Any links would be appreciated. Thanx.

[hawarameen]

not really answering your question but apparently, saddam has encouraged his officers to watch the film to learn from mistakes US made in urban warfare.

[hazard]

the movie is an exercise in american values

the portrayal of starving africans stealing and murdering off of one another is typical southern racism that still think the negroes of the world should still be legal slaves

your're right, its sensless, the movie has no real plot nor does it attempt to develop one

the public is simply supposed to accept the fact that the "skinnies" are bad, for no reason, as no reason is given or required to understand that the american mercenary army is simply going to gun them down, in droves

[Umoja]

Not completely untrue, from what I saw it made sense. A warlord was trying to capitalize off the UN food, by selling it to his supporters. He was able to fire on others, because the United States wasn't allowed to get involved.

How did Somolia get like that? The Soviet Union if I recall correctly, sold weapons to the recently installed communist government in Somalia in the 70's ironically, Somalia's enemy, and next door neighbor (Ethiopia) was also sold weapons by the Soviet Union. A war ensued, and like in Angola the Soviets pulled away their support from the Communist party.

[Eastside Revolt]

The worst propaganda I ever saw was "The Peacemaker". If you want to be genuinly scared watch it.

[hazard]

vanilla sky was some pretty horrific propaganda, come to think of it

[CopperGoat]

Come on people I need more info. My Civics teacher is somewhat of an asshole, and i want to corner him. I have been looking for links but no luck.

[Hampton]

I heard somewhere that the government gets to read over the script to make sure that they glorify the military and in return they lend them airplanes and such.

[hazard]

what sort of info do you need?

the basics are all I need

just ask stuff like what constitutes a "confirmed kill" and what are the SOmali's take on the event and why, in the movie, are the UN portrayed as bad guys and why is it that the americans, no matter what, can do no wrong

give me some guiding questions and I'll try and help you out more. if you can, be specific

[Anarcho]

There are many factual parts in the movie, taken from eyewitness accounts.

Clinton needed a PR coup. Somalia was picked as a place to show that Clinton could do some good on the world stage.

Somalia had collapsed completely, and was being ruled by a patchwork of various dictators and warlords. Mogadishu was like a city at war with itself, split up amongst the various high powered warlords.

The US, and after a while the UN, moved in troops in an attempt to stabilize the region and create an infrastructure for food delivery. They were doing fine on this task, until certain warlords refused to allow the US/UN forces access into their regions.

Mohammed Adid was one of the most powerful warlords in Somalia. The US made an attempt to capture him. They failed, and it ended up with a team of rangers being trapped. The firefight depicted in the movie happened pretty much like that. Hundreds of Somali troops/militia were killed, as well as a handful of Civilians. It's almost impossible to figure out how many, if any, of the civilians were killed by US troops.

The barbaric treatment of the dead and wounded by the Somali people revolted the US public so badly, they began pushing for the US troops involved there to come home. Eventually, the Clinton administration caved, and pulled the troops out.

Without the heavy involvement of US forces, the UN mission had to be cut back drastically.

I've spoken with at least one former soldier who was there... he says the most scared he ever was in his life was when an 8yo kid came around the corner and pointed a Soviet RPG at him. He couldn't shoot the kid, and the kid couldn't figure out how to fire the weapon.

Lucky guy, I suppose.

[CopperGoat]

So, this is the only time where US army tried to do some good, somewhere, in that time? And also, why did the Somalians felt that US was a threat? And, what is a PR coup?

[Pete]

public relations coup. Make yourself look good in 3 easy steps..

[Anarcho]

Quote: from CopperGoat on 8:31 pm on April 5, 2003
So, this is the only time where US army tried to do some good, somewhere, in that time? And also, why did the Somalians felt that US was a threat? And, what is a PR coup?


I'm goign to get in trouble for this one, I can feel it already.

The US often tries to do two things at once... perform a humanitarian aid mission while creating a better political environment for itself. This is common with all nations, but the US tends to 1- make mistakes and 2- get a lot of bad press. They are the big kid, and the big kid is never really trusted.

A few years after Somalia, US forces prepared to invade Haiti in an attempt to restore democracy and provide aid to a people that were rapidly begining to lose their "basic humanitarian requirements". It worked, but unfortunatly the guy the US put back in charge turned out to be just as corrupt as the one replaced. The only difference would be that the re-instated president tends to make some basic eforts to keep his people happy.

Ah well. It seems that often, for the US, the classic phrase "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" would apply.

[Dhul Fiqar]

What no one seems to be addressing is the fact that they killed more than a thousand people that day, and most of them were civilians. I've seen interviews with the survivors and one quote I remember in particular was: "Now I think it was wrong of us to get involved in Somalia. I wouldn't trade the lives of even one more American soldier for a thousand of those Somalians lives..."

People actually APPLAUDED this! It was on CNN, kind of an open interview with the guys in a studio with an audience. Came on just after the film premiered.
They also admitted to shooting women and children indiscriminately because they "didn't have time to aim".

--- G.

[Anarcho]

The problem with that claim is that it's almost impossible in that sort of environment to determine what a combatant actually is. Is a 10yo boy a combatant? What if he's shooting at you with a pistol?

It was a tragic day, all the way around. That can't be denied.

[CopperGoat]

Ok, thanx for info. Especially about the PR Coup (lol!). Hopefully I will get back at my teacher.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from Anarcho on 9:13 pm on April 6, 2003
The problem with that claim is that it's almost impossible in that sort of environment to determine what a combatant actually is. Is a 10yo boy a combatant? What if he's shooting at you with a pistol?


Yeah, but I would not think that the standard response to the situation would be to stop aiming. They made it very clear they didn't give a shit if they had to kill 500 women and children to get two of their guys out of a tight spot.

In any case, you're right, it was a tragedy :(

--- G.

[Dirty Jersey]

you just have to think of special forces as a family. and most people would kill any number of people they dont know to save a brother. as to not aiming thats a sad mistake but you can pin most of it on panic. im sure if you get shot at from within a crowd and cant locate the shooter most peoples first reaction would be to unload into the crowd. its unfortunate but its reaction.

[Invader Zim]

it must be true only the US military could make such a cock up.

[Anarcho]

As opposed to the debacle that was the "rescue" of the theatre in Moscow?

All nations make mistakes. All nations, when you look hard enough, have done pretty much the same things wrong. The US gets more press though, since when they mess up it tends to have larger repercussions.

[Invader Zim]

yes but only america could kill more of its own troops than the Vietcong.

[Anarcho]

huh?

I'm afraid you lost me there, comrade.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Actually BHD had the normal sense of Hollywood propaganda in it.

It's not CIA or US government backed, if u watch the movie you don't get a sudden need to join the army.

Which is the case in Sum of all fears, which is CIA backed.

But like in all (almost) Hollywood movies, it's propaganda, Americans good, others bad

And something that the American moviemakers always tried to do is blame all the badstuff on some bureacrat.

Sitting at this desk, giving wrong orders, on porpuse.

You could see it in the Rambo movies and now u see it in BHD.

It's not the soldiers who want to do evil, but the bureaucrats, who don't allow them to help the people.

I hope u could understand something of the brabbeling just shown up there.

- CCCP

[angry]

hazard:

Vanilla sky is based on a Spanish film, just wanted to point that out..;)

but the movie is two hours of horror, blood and guts, pure american propaganda, as in most movies that come from hollywood nowadays, i suggest you to watch european/asian/african/australian films more, they are very good most of them, though they are not made by the holly jolly formula, i think it is quite easy to get, well for me it is, ´cause my father is a director/writer and we have a lot of films at home..

[Pete]

Quote: from Anarcho on 8:15 am on April 9, 2003
As opposed to the debacle that was the "rescue" of the theatre in Moscow?

All nations make mistakes. All nations, when you look hard enough, have done pretty much the same things wrong. The US gets more press though, since when they mess up it tends to have larger repercussions.


I think the difference is that it was done on their own people who where taken hostage, and America was intervening and attempting a hostage taking in Somolia.

[Urban Rubble]

Sometimes I don't get you people. It seems alot of you are just the opposite of the people who jump so quickly to defend fucked up U.S moves, you are the ones that automatically jump to the conclusion that the U.S was there to be evil, nothing else. They way I see it, we were there trying to help out, sure, we had our own motives, we always do, but when it comes down to it we WERE trying to get some food in there. I don't know where you guys get this propaganda stuff but the movie basically happened exactly as it did in real life. We brought food, the warlords seized it (that's how they stay in power) so we sent a team to get him. The team is shot down an the whole city takes up arms against us. That is pretty much what happened.

If you want to point out what the U.S did wrong go ahead, but don't try to say they are animals because they shot people who were shooting at them. They went to go rescue some soldiers and were fired on. Of course it was a mistake but Jesus Christ, try to be a little more un-biased.

[exploding toast]

i have to agree with dirty jersey...it is sad to think of it that way... but it is true

[CubanFox]

Quote: from CopperGoat on 10:21 pm on April 3, 2003
Alright, so in 1993, in Somalia, in that city. The US/ UN were trying to help and give aid, but the warlord stopped them. Why did the warlord stop them? And why was he there in the first place. Another question, why were the civilians against the US/ UN when it tried to give them aid?

i really need help on these, we saw more of the movie today. Any links would be appreciated. Thanx.


Mohammed Farrah Aidid was a warlord; one of the most powerful in Somalia. Basically the aim of each warlord was to take control of the nation for their clan's purposes.

Err, here's a link that explains stuff about it. Might be cappie owned, not sure. Have a read anyway.

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somali...lia/sitemap.asp (http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp)

[CubanFox]

And btw, 18 Americans were killed, over 1000 Somalis (Skinnies or Sammies as the US guys called 'em)