News Hearts and Minds

  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date

Art

I saw some interesting footage on Sky News this evening re Iraq. The first clip showed British soldiers mounting a night operation to capture insurgents suspected of being the bomb makers who killed 2 British soldiers in 2 recent separate incidents. The British surrounded the target apartment block, then moved in, captured 2 of the people they were hunting and found a stash of explosives and detonators. After questioning by the British military authorities they are to be handed over to the Iraqi police to be dealt with by them. The second clip showed an apartment block which US forces suspected was being used by Iraqi insurgents. All that was left of it and the surrounding area, were piles of rubble after being hit by several 500 lb bombs. US forces claimed 40 suspected insurgents had been killed.
The contrast in how the two situations were handled was very striking. Is this perhaps part of the reason why the US military are finding it so hard to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
two seemingly parallel situations
We don't have anywhere near enough information to think that the circumstances were even vaguely similar, so I'm going to have to object to this.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
Hurkyl said:
We don't have anywhere near enough information to think that the circumstances were even vaguely similar, so I'm going to have to object to this.
I agree, you have to furnish valid links.
 

Art

Hurkyl said:
We don't have anywhere near enough information to think that the circumstances were even vaguely similar, so I'm going to have to object to this.
Sky News screened the 2 clips one immediately after another so they were obviously quite deliberately inviting viewers to draw comparisons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Art

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13369272,00.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
Art said:
Sky News screened the 2 clips one after immediately after another so they were obviously quite deliberately inviting viewers to draw comparisons.
Well, we all know how video clips can be made to represent just about anything you want. It may be valid, but why aren't other international news agencies reporting this? We would have to see the whole thing, of both occurences in order to decide.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
The first step to resisting propaganda techniques is recognizing them.
 

Art

Hurkyl said:
The first step to resisting propaganda techniques is recognizing them.
Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox news. Generally if there is a bias it is pro Bush administration. I've edited out the remark 'seemingly parallel'. It now reflects exactly the info contained n the link I provided.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
Art said:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13369272,00.html [Broken]
That doesn't allow people in the US to view it.

It also doesn't mention a video of the US incident. Do you have a video of the US incident?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Art

DAWN RAID ON INSURGENTS

Iraqi insurgents suspected of carrying out roadside bomb attacks which killed two British soldiers have been arrested in dawn raids.

The Ministry of Defence has said troops from the Staffordshire regiment made the arrests in the early hours, detaining "less than five suspects".


The operations, carried out by Task Force Maysan, were reported to have recovered 130 detonators and other bomb-making equipment.

A spokesman said the raids took place in al Marjarr al Kabira, close to al Amarah, in Maysan province.

Lance Corporal Alan Brackenbury, 21, from Goole, East Yorkshire, died in al Amarah when a roadside bomb exploded on May 29.

Guardsman Anthony Wakefield, 24, of the 1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards, was also killed in the area in a blast last month.

"Those targeted were suspected of being involved in recent attacks which claimed the lives of two UK soldiers, Guardsman Wakefield and Lance Corporal Brackenbury, in May 2005," said the MOD spokesman.

He said British troops had not encountered any hostile action during the operation.

Intelligence experts are currently analysing equipment and information captured during the raids.

The MOD would not reveal exactly how many suspects had been arrested and also refused to confirm where the men were being held.

The raids come hours after US troops revealed they killed 40 suspected insurgents in air and ground strikes close to the Syrian border in western Iraq.
Here's the article. There is a video too. I didn't realise there would be restrictions on US viewing....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
I believe you Art, but without seeing it, or another valid newsource it's hard to say what you've seen or what the circumstances were.
 

Art

Evo said:
I believe you Art, but without seeing it, or another valid newsource it's hard to say what you've seen or what the circumstances were.
So bye bye thread :cry:
 
2
0
Different approaches

During World War Ii the British and American forces had different ways of handling things. If you go to your state library and get the Time/ Life books on World War II there is one on D-Day. You see on the cover British solders getting off a boat like it's a vacation. Now the reason why they didn't have the same problems as the American's was due to a series of Tanks. Now it's been a few years since I read this so please excuse the fact that I don't have the exact name of the general of the tanks of the exact names of the tanks. Basically they were different Sherman tanks. One had removable flaps and a propeller so it could move in the ocean. incidently this is the only kind the American's accepted to take on their beaches. Then there was another that rolled out (bamboo?) poles with a matterial made out of coconut fiber. This was so heavy equipment could go on this tarp without sinking in the sand. Then they had another in which a tank could lay a small type of bridge over the walls. Then they had another in which a triagle shape basken was shot out of it's special cannon for clearing pill boxes. Then they had a flame throwing tank. They had a mind weeper tank and one that was like a tow truck tank. Basically they uysed thier heads. The Americans refused it and got alot of people killed.

The British S A S comando's have a saying "He who dares...Wins!"
The problem with the war in Iraq is we don't send Special Forces in large numbers. We got a whole bunch of people who want to join the Special Forces, and these schools are not accepting everyone. Instead of having a Battalion of Special Forces, we are sending grandfathers over in the National Guard to drive a truck in a street full of mines. These people have got two years to go in their reitirement and they get killed, because they were trained to put a bridge in, not drive a truck in a mine filled road. So yeah, I don't know what happened in the video. I do know that we sent the wrong types of troops in who are not like the Commando's the British have in full force. And before anyone says: " That's because our Special forces are fighting the Tailban on the other side of Iran!" I know the point is we are turning people away from joing the special forces while paying corporations millions of Dollars to rip off the government. Someitmes the Billions. Know Again excuse my lack of exact facts but I think it was in a Newsweek article from April 5th or around there. I'm not even sure because it was something I was reading in a Doctors waiting room.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,867
2,343
Art said:
So bye bye thread :cry:
:biggrin: No, let's try to find more information.
 

Art

US air strikes kill 40 insurgents
05:56 AEST Sun Jun 12 2005
AP

US warplanes backed by helicopters launched air strikes that began at 11.40am and ended at 4pm "once all the targets were destroyed", the military said. About 40 insurgents were killed and there were no marine casualties.

"The coalition aircraft and fighter jets and attack helicopters from the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing attacked the insurgent compound and surrounding area targeting the armed men," the statement said. "There are no reports of civilian casualties or collateral damage."

It was unclear if there were any foreign fighters among the slain insurgents. The region is known as a haven for Islamic extremists crossing in and out of Iraq across the Syrian border to attack US and Iraqi security forces. The US military launched two major counterinsurgent offensives in the area last month that killed an estimated 140 militants.
Here's some more
 
2
0
I have to admitte this is reason why I stopped watching t.v. a year ago. I am glad that this info is right up to date on the site. The point I was trying to make is how the British have a different approach at things than the Americans. I'm not saying that the Americans are worst at fighting, but when I read the newspapers, I have yet to read how the British called in an Air Strike when ground forces could be used in certain situations.
 

Art

Big Papa said:
I have to admitte this is reason why I stopped watching t.v. a year ago. I am glad that this info is right up to date on the site. The point I was trying to make is how the British have a different approach at things than the Americans. I'm not saying that the Americans are worst at fighting, but when I read the newspapers, I have yet to read how the British called in an Air Strike when ground forces could be used in certain situations.
I agree, When Britain first intervened militarily in N Ireland they treated it as a 'normal' war thinking a demonstration of vastly superior military might would quickly quell any rebellion. The strategy backfired spectacularly serving only to polarize even the moderate majority and resulted in a 25 year war of attrition with each side seeking an all encompassing military victory. Finally reason prevailed and the British government recognized that the war was unwinnable. This led to a hearts and minds campaign where the British worked hard to breakdown the polarization of the population and so bring the vast majority of moderates back to the middle ground thus isolating the extremists on both sides of the conflict. Without popular support the underground organizations prosecuting the war could no longer function with the impunity they formally had and were forced to rethink their own tactics which in turn lead to peaceful political dialogue. I believe the British have taken this experience they gained in N Ireland with them to Iraq and have benefitted accordingly by forging a good relationship with the general populace in the areas under their control.
I suspect the American forces are making the same fundamental error that Britain made 30 years ago in thinking that massive superior firepower will result in a definitive military victory and I believe the consequences will be the same as in the British experience.
An example of the restraint Britain has shown in Iraq was when 6 of their Military Police were killed by a mob. Rather than retaliate with a massive strike they spoke to the town's representatives established what had caused the unrest (which turned out to be overzealous house to house searches by a particular British unit) and ensured that such behaviour by British troops did not happen again. I'm sure the gut reaction of the local British military commanders must have been to launch a massive retaliatory strike against the town to avenge their comrades deaths but that small piece of instant gratification would have led to numerous deaths further along the road. By exercising restraint they now have an excellent relationship with the people of that area who actively assist the British in tracking down the insurgents operating in that locale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,831
5,016
It looks pretty straightforward to me: the American attack killed ~40 insurgents and the British raid captured 2. You don't have to be a mathematician (sorry Hurkyl - had to) to see how vastly different the scenarios are.
 

Art

russ_watters said:
It looks pretty straightforward to me: the American attack killed ~40 insurgents and the British raid captured 2. You don't have to be a mathematician (sorry Hurkyl - had to) to see how vastly different the scenarios are.
In Britain there is a shared belief amongst all broadcasters that the US adopt a too heavy handed approach in Iraq and so ferment unrest. This came to the fore when British troops (the Black Watch regiment) were redeployed near to Baghdad late last year in support of US forces for their attack on Fallujah. There was public uproar in Britain as it was feared by acting in close concert with US forces, they would be tarred with the same brush by the Iraqi people. But who are we europeans to suggest to omnipotent beings such as yourself Russ that there just might be a better way of doing things. It's obvious to everybody you have the situation in the American sectors of Iraq fully in control :rofl:
BTW Did you not think it was incredibly obliging of the insurgents to all live together in the one apartment block and to exclude all civilians and also unbelievably fortuitous that these 40 insurgents so generously offered themselves for target practice only a couple of days after 7 US marines were killed near the town?
At scene of Iraq air strikes, casualties unclear
12 Jun 2005 16:30:46 GMT

Source: Reuters

KARABILAH, Iraq, June 12 (Reuters) - Iraqis inspecting the damage of U.S. air strikes in western Iraq on Sunday challenged American assertions that the raids had killed 40 insurgents, saying there were no guerrillas in the area.

"There were no mujahideen (fighters) or armed men in the area. The planes attacked indiscriminately," said one man, who did not give his name, as he inspected the rubble of a house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
78
0
brits are the same as americans, the thing is british have only 1000 soldiers while americans 200,000.
from history we all know the destruction of dresden and carpet bombings of german cities by british/usa planes.
 

alexandra

stoned said:
brits are the same as americans, the thing is british have only 1000 soldiers while americans 200,000.
from history we all know the destruction of dresden and carpet bombings of german cities by british/usa planes.
Good point, stoned. And here's another thought: what does it matter whether you invade someone else's country 'nicely', with a smiling face, or whether you're more up-front about what you're doing? It seems much of a muchness to me - the ultimate fate of the Iraqi people is the same: their country is occupied by hostile forces who are killing them (some smile while they do it).
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
Big Papa said:
During World War Ii the British and American forces had different ways of handling things. If you go to your state library and get the Time/ Life books on World War II there is one on D-Day. You see on the cover British solders getting off a boat like it's a vacation. Now the reason why they didn't have the same problems as the American's was due to a series of Tanks. Now it's been a few years since I read this so please excuse the fact that I don't have the exact name of the general of the tanks of the exact names of the tanks. Basically they were different Sherman tanks. One had removable flaps and a propeller so it could move in the ocean. incidently this is the only kind the American's accepted to take on their beaches. Then there was another that rolled out (bamboo?) poles with a matterial made out of coconut fiber. This was so heavy equipment could go on this tarp without sinking in the sand. Then they had another in which a tank could lay a small type of bridge over the walls. Then they had another in which a triagle shape basken was shot out of it's special cannon for clearing pill boxes. Then they had a flame throwing tank. They had a mind weeper tank and one that was like a tow truck tank. Basically they uysed thier heads. The Americans refused it and got alot of people killed.
Your description sounds a little like Gold Beach, but that was more a good last minute decision by the British commander than design. The original plan had them launching the tanks while still out at sea. Whether the British commander had more experience with the sea or what, he was smart enough to realize that idea wasn't going to work in the conditions that day - it was pretty rough seas for a craft modified to be amphibious. Taking the landing craft all the way to beach before launching the tanks had its own risks.

If they were getting off the boat like it was vacation, it had to be after the invasion was complete. The guys on Gold Beach fared better than the troops on Omaha Beach (who only had six tanks make it to the beach), but it was still a darn heroic battle to win that beach, as well.

Or maybe it was Sword Beach and you were just fooled by the sight of the guys playing bagpipes. That doesn't mean it was easy, you just don't understand the power of bagpipes:

On the sun-beaten badlands in northwest India during the late 19th century, a ragged platoon of Highlanders seeks cover from sun small arms fire. Their young English officer, Webley revolver in one hand and a broadsword in the other, assesses the situation crouched behind a boulder. A few feet away lies his Sergeant Major. Both are keenly aware of the intended goal. A well-defended enemy fortification constructed of granite-hard, sun baked mud, a scant 400 yards distant must be taken. The young officer rubs his eyes free of grit, and addresses his NCO: "Good God Sergeant Major! How can we seize that position with only 12 riflemen and a single piper?" The grizzled Sergeant Major, veteran of countless battles, unsheaths his bayonet and deftly locks it into place with a barely audible click. In an assuring voice he answers, "Och! Dinna worry yoursel' sir. Corporal MacDonnell's a verra good piper.".
 

Art

stoned said:
brits are the same as americans, the thing is british have only 1000 soldiers while americans 200,000.
from history we all know the destruction of dresden and carpet bombings of german cities by british/usa planes.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide the source for your troop numbers. :rofl: :rofl:
 

Art

alexandra said:
Good point, stoned. And here's another thought: what does it matter whether you invade someone else's country 'nicely', with a smiling face, or whether you're more up-front about what you're doing? It seems much of a muchness to me - the ultimate fate of the Iraqi people is the same: their country is occupied by hostile forces who are killing them (some smile while they do it).
As I said on another thread I think Tony Blair agreeing to help the Americans to remove Saddam was well intentioned based on a lot of false 'facts' he was fed. The way I summed it up was "Blair did the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
310
2
Art said:
As I said on another thread I think Tony Blair agreeing to help the Americans to remove Saddam was well intentioned based on a lot of false 'facts' he was fed. The way I summed it up was "Blair did the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons"
keep fooling yourself. It's ok, you suffer from the same symptoms the americans do.
 

Related Threads for: Hearts and Minds

  • Posted
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
379
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top