Operation S
March 21, 2003 9:48 AM   Subscribe

Pentagon Begins Major Air Strike on Baghdad
posted by sixdifferentways (47 comments total)

 
jebus, this thread is useless.
posted by machaus at 9:50 AM on March 21, 2003


Yes. Yes they did.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:54 AM on March 21, 2003


WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
SIXDIFFERENTWAYS?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:54 AM on March 21, 2003


If so, I hope Matt removes it. I would not normally post something that is all over the news - but bot everyone has television at this time in the morning on a work day - and it is only now showing up on some news sites (which many companies block access to.)
posted by sixdifferentways at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2003


A simple comment I heard today:

"In many ways, Bagdad is like Chicago. About the same area and the same size population."

It makes me think of Chicago.
posted by kablam at 9:55 AM on March 21, 2003


In many ways, Bagdad is like Chicago.

Bollocks. Saddam looks nothing like Catherine Zeta-Jones.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:59 AM on March 21, 2003


" The officials say that if Saddam Hussein is alive, he is "not in minute-to-minute control" of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi government, King reported."

Suuuuure, CNN, I believe you. And Osama's dead too right?
posted by zekinskia at 10:00 AM on March 21, 2003


I've been shocked and awed by the entire Bush foreign policy, so I guess nothing will change today.
posted by Bag Man at 10:05 AM on March 21, 2003


And Osama's dead too right?

Osama isn't dead, he's at my house right now playin' kings quest 3. if you guys have any questions or anything for him I can pass them along!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:07 AM on March 21, 2003


When I was told this morning that some pundits were beginning to believe "shock and awe" was "hot and air", I wondered if they were right.

Just shows how modern war is still trying to keep up with MTV attention span viewers.
posted by will at 10:07 AM on March 21, 2003


Cool. Once we liberate Iraq, where is the place to party on Rush Street?
posted by internal at 10:08 AM on March 21, 2003


" The officials say that if Saddam Hussein is alive, he is "not in minute-to-minute control" of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi government, King reported."

Suuuuure, CNN, I believe you. And Osama's dead too right?


zekinskia, what's your beef? CNN has made no claims whatsoever. CNN has merely reported what people have said. You should notice the "officials say" language. Your disbelief should be aimed at US officials, and rightfully so.
posted by Bag Man at 10:08 AM on March 21, 2003


.
posted by muckster at 10:13 AM on March 21, 2003


in a monty python voice, No they didn't!

six, your post isn't nearly as bad as the mother-of-susan-sarandon post that just came up, and i enjoy your site, [listening right now to washington bullets], but man, oh man, oh man, oh man.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:27 AM on March 21, 2003


>CNN has made no claims whatsoever.

Its what they dont ask thats just shameful.

Official: UNBELIEVABLE LIE/SPIN/EXAGGERATION
CNN: FAILS OBVIOUS FOLLOWUP
CNN: NODS HEAD

Repeat. Rinse.
posted by skallas at 10:28 AM on March 21, 2003


What is the point of "shock and awe" now that the troops are moving across Iraq with hardly any resistance?

"Well, since it looks like most of you are going to surrender, we will now try and scare you senseless."
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:38 AM on March 21, 2003


y6y6y6 - To kill. It is as simple (and disgusting) as that.n
posted by ScottUltra at 10:42 AM on March 21, 2003


Is Osama hiding out in the US? I watched a documentary last night which presented worrying evidence.
posted by asok at 10:47 AM on March 21, 2003


I think the reason that they are using "shock and awe" now is that they had it set up already and didn't want to waste all those planning hours.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:49 AM on March 21, 2003


What is the point of "shock and awe" now that the troops are moving across Iraq with hardly any resistance?

There's no resistance in the open desert. There will be in the cities.

And yes, to kill.
posted by bondcliff at 10:50 AM on March 21, 2003



posted by specialk420 at 10:53 AM on March 21, 2003


.
posted by capiscum at 10:58 AM on March 21, 2003


Just lock Saddam in a club and start macing people. That'll take care of him.
posted by adampsyche at 10:59 AM on March 21, 2003


Ya know, I should think twice before I click "submit."
posted by adampsyche at 11:01 AM on March 21, 2003


Maybe Saddam's a Great White fan....

/tasteless nightclub tragedy humor
posted by thewittyname at 11:19 AM on March 21, 2003


>CNN has made no claims whatsoever.

Its what they dont ask thats just shameful.

Official: UNBELIEVABLE LIE/SPIN/EXAGGERATION
CNN: FAILS OBVIOUS FOLLOWUP
CNN: NODS HEAD


Here’s how it likely went down, at more likely than you're little drama

CNN: Can we have some more details or proof?

Bush administration official: Sorry that's classified...perhaps you missed the war that's going on.

I'm not sure if the CNN correspondent nodded his head, but during a war some stuff is, and should, remain classified.

This then comes back to old bully pulpit thing, when you’re the president you get it. I guess it's just the old MIFI manifesto: Those who do not share your beliefs or don't follow your dogma are evil and wrong.
posted by Bag Man at 11:22 AM on March 21, 2003


Any idea how to estimate what portion of the population of Baghdad (~4-6 million) is civilian and what portion government/military?
posted by sudama at 11:23 AM on March 21, 2003


What is the point of 'shock and awe' now that the troops are moving across Iraq with hardly any resistance?

They're driving across a desert that's undefended because (a) it's a desert, there's nothing there; and (b) Iraq's strategy is to concentrate in Baghdad and make the invaders/liberators go house-to-house.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:39 AM on March 21, 2003


I got the impression from the news conference in Baghdad with the minister of information(?) that several people may be vying for "who's going to be the next Saddam?". Shock and Awe is directed more toward that element, is what I'm thinking.
posted by slowlightning at 12:15 PM on March 21, 2003


Remember Sept. 11?

Fiddlesticks compared to what we're doing right now.
posted by muckster at 12:20 PM on March 21, 2003


Here’s how it likely went down, at more likely than you're little drama

CNN: Can we have some more details or proof?

Bush administration official: Sorry that's classified...perhaps you missed the war that's going on.


Then the CNN correspondent's next step should be to ask again, ask other people, and dig up new sources of information. It's called journalism and it's different from modern broadcasting, which is more like reading press releases and proving they're true with big shiny graphics and snazzy titles. Until the broadcast networks go back to journalism, their reports are untrustworthy and should be ignored.
posted by neuroshred at 12:46 PM on March 21, 2003


.
posted by VulcanMike at 1:01 PM on March 21, 2003


Then the CNN correspondent's next step should be to ask again, ask other people, and dig up new sources of information. It's called journalism and it's different from modern broadcasting, which is more like reading press releases and proving they're true with big shiny graphics and snazzy titles. Until the broadcast networks go back to journalism, their reports are untrustworthy and should be ignored.

neuroshred, perhaps you have missed something. The story was that the official believed something, which is far different from a story that reports what the official said as a fact. neuroshred you have no proof that CNN did not do you asserted they should do. Also considering that the press conference where this statement was made was less than three hours ago, I’d hardly suspect that anyone could have discovered the whole truth yet. With the proper context, reporting what an official said is about as unbiased as you can get.

Neuroshred, it's your own bias that has made a fair remark seem bias. Oh wait, on MIFI normative values are facts, sorry neuroshred my mistake.
posted by Bag Man at 1:30 PM on March 21, 2003


A reminder of why Robert Fisk used to be a good journalist: his powers of description. Wow.
posted by ednopantz at 1:38 PM on March 21, 2003


Meanwhile... Fez beclad jackals.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:47 PM on March 21, 2003


Why is ok for Fisk to be bias when he says stuff like:

Well yes, one could say, could one attack a more appropriate regime? But that is not quite the point. For the message of last night's raid was the same as that of Thursday's raid, that of all the raids in the hours to come: that the United States must be obeyed. That the EU, UN, Nato – nothing – must stand in its way. Indeed can stand in its way.

I know the babies on MIFI don't like reporting that does not confirm their worldview. Then, to make sure all people that MIFIers don't agree with are marginalized these liars and cheats in the media are given the "corporate" label. Of course "corporate" means evil. That in and of itself reflects the o'soooo sweet MIFI hatred of dissent and embracement of narrow-mindedness . This is nothing short of total and compete hypocrisy.
posted by Bag Man at 2:08 PM on March 21, 2003


Why is ok for Fisk to be bias when he says stuff like:

...like the stuff Richard Perle has been saying this week, and since the first PNAC stuff in 1996? That American military power is the sole guarantor of American interests, and be damned with collective security?

I dunno. You tell me, BIMI.

But yeah, Fisk is at his best when he's on the scene, rather than phoning in opinions. And since he lived through the blowing to bits of his home town, Beirut, by militias of all colours, he has something of a historical perspective here.
posted by riviera at 2:37 PM on March 21, 2003


Bag Man: What is this MIFI that you keep talking about?
posted by turaho at 2:39 PM on March 21, 2003


Bag Man: What is this MIFI that you keep talking about?

Perhpas you should address the issue I raise, rather than mocking a typo. How about MIFI = metafilter, happy?
posted by Bag Man at 2:41 PM on March 21, 2003


I was just asking because you've appealed to the existence of some MeFi "manifesto" in three separate comments in this thread to belittle those who disagree with you, and it comes off as whiny.

Sorry about the derail, I'll quit now.
posted by turaho at 2:49 PM on March 21, 2003


I was just asking because you've appealed to the existence of some MeFi "manifesto" in three separate comments in this thread to belittle those who disagree with you, and it comes off as whiny

Not to "derail," but you have displayed a fine job of attempting to marginalize my comments by calling them "whiny." Do have any response on the merits of my argument? Is it not a fact that the official said what he said? Is not clear that Fisk interjects his views of world politics (seemingly to condemn the bombing) while asserting he is "reporting news"? Why is CNN blasted and Fisk congratulated? I believe the answer is clear and just an example of a larger trend.
posted by Bag Man at 3:01 PM on March 21, 2003


U.S. Invasion Crystalizes Islamic World Against America
posted by homunculus at 3:23 PM on March 21, 2003


I'm not attacking the validity of your arguments. I just think they would be better received without the cheap shots at some imagined MeFi party-line.
posted by turaho at 3:25 PM on March 21, 2003


"Turkey has said it will send troops into northern Iraq, despite opposition from the US. The BBC correspondent in Turkey says there are reports that Turkish troops will cross the border within a few hours."
posted by homunculus at 3:54 PM on March 21, 2003


within a few hours

"A Turkish commando force of about 1,500 men crossed into northern Iraq on Friday night, a precursor to eventual larger deployment, a Turkish military official told Reuters."
posted by homunculus at 4:04 PM on March 21, 2003


Is not clear that Fisk interjects his views of world politics (seemingly to condemn the bombing) while asserting he is "reporting news"?

I don't believe that assertion was ever made, which makes your claim a straw man. You seem eminently capable of separating Fisk's comment from his description, meaning that you probably read the article, which has no good words for Saddam. Just as, in the past, he has had no good words for Arafat, having lived in and around PLO-occupied Lebanon. Of course, if you think you can do better, you can always hitch-hike to Baghdad. (Does the New York Times have a correspondent in Baghdad right now? I can't see any dispatches sent from the capital on the paper's website. Though Anthony Shadid appears to be offering reports with just a soupçon of US-centric opinion, which may appeal to your taste.)

Right now, you'll find purer reportage from Fisk than from any of the 'embedded' journalists, or from any of the TV correspondents in the Ministry of Information with their minders and fixed rooftop camera positions. I'm sure that will make some people choke into their coffee while changing from CNN to Fox News for a better angle from which to see the latest blasts.
posted by riviera at 4:21 PM on March 21, 2003


Perhpas you should address the issue I raise?

thanks for getting your feathers in fluff and bringing attention to the excellent fisk article.

merits of my argument?

none found.
posted by specialk420 at 5:49 PM on March 21, 2003


« Older Let's talk about childhood toys....  |  Apple to switch to Intel proce... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments