@F_alk:
Umm Kasr has been taken three day ago… no, there is still fighting… no, it’s taken, no, there is still fighting…
This war is a prime example of disinformation. The press who is taken with the armed forces is censored before they are allowed to send anything of their stuff home…
F_alk you are just like a friend of mine who says he doesn’t watch the (especially CNN) military coverage because it’s all Pentagon propaganda designed to demoralize the enemy. :lol:
Now sure, in order to get the access they have (which is unprecedented) CNN & other news agencies have had to agree to some tight controls. They are limited (censored) as to what they report & when they report it. But they are showing LIVE PICTURES from damm near the front lines & interviewing people as they come back from missions. How do you think the Pentagon would’ve handled the story of the GI who fragged some of his fellow soldiers had there not been a newsman there on the scene within seconds of it happening? In some cases the Pentagon will be having headaches due to the amount of access these reporters are having, especially when they start filming people being killed–which may happen in a live broadcast: I’ve certainly already seen people injured. Not saying that’s a good thing, but being informed is never a bad thing…
Except when people are only half-informed & not given proper guidance as to what they are seeing–happened a lot in Vietnam, & its happened in this war as well in regards to the “secured” towns like Basra & Um Qasr. I was not surprised in the least when casualties were taken AFTER the US battle front rolled through–these cities were isolated & surrounded by Coalition forces, in the case of Um Qasr the harbor was taken (& remains in Coalition hands) & the enemy pockets of resistance were bypassed TO BE ELIMINATED LATER AT THE COALITION’S PACE. Works pretty well with enemies that are smart & surrender when the situation is clearly hopeless, works less well when the enemy desires to die fighting, but the result give-or-take some casualties–never a good thing–is still the same.
But when people are told the cities are sealed off & have been bypassed, then they see casualties there occurring days later, they are confused because “Hey, there aren’t supposed to be any Iraqis there!” It’s a mistake for the media not to explain these things in detail.
In the case of al’Nasiriya, as I’ve said before, there is evidence of a counter-infiltration by Iraqi paramilitary forces AFTER the allies secured the bridges & rolled through. That’s pretty bad news. It seems likely to me personally as well that some Iraqi forces in al’Nasiriya, possibly in other places as well, were in hiding, waiting for the assault troops to pass through BEFORE opening fire on the mop-up troops & logistics personnel from hidden positions & ambushes. This is a bad sign that the regime is not going down without a fight, however hopeless…
Also, a certain amount of confusion from the press is understandable given the rapidity of new developments & the eagerness of reporters to scoop everyone else. Still, it beats the reporting on the Lewinsky case.
Or maybe its all just Pentagon propaganda & the Iraqis are actually kicking our a$$es. That IS what Saddam suggested last night–ON THE NEWS! :wink: To each their own…
Ozone27