View from the air of "massive" uprising

Status
Not open for further replies.
I chalk this up to being our first "TV war", and sure they'll be mistakes, shots will be cued up wrong, some of the local actors employed won't have visited makeup and costume before going on camera. These aren't unusual with first time efforts. I'm sure they'll get better at this with the next one. Personally, I liked seeing the statue fall, it really was a great moment. I hope next time they run one of these TV wars they get the clocks syncronized a little better - having daybreak there during prime time viewing here didn't work for me. They need to establish a rule that the country being invaded should be in a time zone that gives us stateside viewers some afternoon shots that they can then fade into evening.
 
I suppose the canadians are in on the conspiracy too...

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/04/09/61233-ap.html

The toppling of the statue in Baghdad’s Paradise Square was highly symbolic on a day when emboldened Iraqis cheered U.S. troops and celebrated what they saw as the end of Saddam’s rule. With Saddam’s feared security forces nowhere in sight, Baghdad residents also went on a looting free-for-all, stripping government ministries, even police stations and military posts.

“I’m 49, but I never lived a single day. Only now will I start living,†said Yussuf Abed Kazim, a preacher at a local mosque who bashed the Saddam statue with a sledgehammer as other Iraqis yelled, “Hit the eye! Hit the eye!â€

“That Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a criminal,†Kazim said.


Many in the crowd beat their chests and chanted, “There is a burning in our chests,†a Shiite Muslim slogan. Celebrations were particularly strong in Baghdad’s Shiite neighborhoods, like Saddam City in the northeast. In one area, hundreds of jubilant Shiites shouted, “There is no god but Allah!†waving palm fronds and prayer stones.

Shiites make up the majority in Iraq but have long felt oppressed at the hands of Saddam’s largely Sunni Muslim government.

The Saddam statue in Firdos Square, the Arabic word for Paradise, was in the melodramatic Soviet style, depicting the Iraqi president standing tall in civilian clothes with his right arm raised in a wave to his people. Its fall, broadcast live across the Arab world on satellite television, recalled images of Lenin’s statue being pulled down in Russia during the Soviet Union’s collapse.

After the crowd tried for more than an hour to being the statue down, the Marines stepped in to help with a winch on a tank recovery vehicle. The first pull brought the statue halfway down, dangling off its 25-foot-high pedestal as the crowd pelted it with garbage.

Another tug, and it broke in half, leaving only the twisted metal of the feet with two rusted pipes sticking out of them.

Of course, video of the crowd trying to bring the statue down by themselves for more than an hour with no success, wasn't as dramatic as the Marines doing it.
 
Interesting in all the articles about this I've looked at so far, not one describes the crowd as massive.

I've seen reference to a thousand cheering Iraqis comming out onto the streets as the Americans entered Baghdad on that day. But it doesn't say they all congregated on the square near Saddams statue. I think it more likely that the troops were met by a large numer of small crowds.

FoxNews story on this...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83682,00.html

It began when a crowd of several hundred Iraqis threw a rope around the neck of the statue, which depicts the Iraqi president in civilian clothes, his right arm raised high in greeting to his people.

Some bashed at the 25-foot-tall base with a sledgehammer.

"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day. Only now will I start living," Yussuf Abed Kazim, a mosque preacher, said as he whacked away, knocking tile and concrete off the pedestal. "That Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a criminal."

The crowd pelted the statue with shoes and slippers — a gross insult in the Arab world — while a column of U.S. armor sat in the square, a large roundabout ringed with columns in front of the blue-domed Shahid Mosque.

The crowd, however, appeared unable to bring the statue down, or unsure how to do it safely.

The Marines got into the act, climbing up and briefly covering Saddam's face with an American flag like a hood. They replaced it with the black-white-and-red Iraqi flag, wrapped around the statue's neck.

The Americans then put their winch's cable in place, waved the crowd back out the way, and began to pull.
 
And here's an interesting article at the heart of the issue...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134673496_kay11m.html

Seen one, seen 'em fall.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein statues in Iraq has become, by virtue of repetition, the photo op of the war. By late yesterday, news anchors were inserting self-conscious phrases like "now-obligatory ritual" to introduce the inevitable footage.

Less agreed on was which image to use.

The sight most frequently seen Wednesday on foreign TV — that of Marines giving Saddam's giant likeness a Stars-and-Stripes facial — was rarely shown here.

Instead, American networks and cable channels opted for the topple: the same statue getting pulled down in central Baghdad and subsequently trampled by jubilant Iraqis.

The divergence in selection is par for the course. At this stage of the war, the split between U.S. television coverage and that of the rest of the world frequently mimics the split between the U.S. administration and the United Nations.

What it amounts to on the screen is choice of spin. As viewers with access to overseas coverage can attest, the news media's apparent lack of independence from either government influence or popular taste is rampant throughout much of the world, be it Western or Arab. The BBC is a rare exception.

Al-Jazeera and networks in Syria and Lebanon were even more out of context Wednesday. They showed only the U.S. flag draped on the statue's face, not the cheering crowds greeting its downfall and destroying it afterward.

Mind you, television news producers in this country probably were aware that Wednesday's money shot wasn't the perfect symbol of Iraqi un-repression.

When the scene first appeared on American television, audiences were led to assume that the Iraqi people had felled the statue themselves, possibly with — as one badly uninformed CNN anchor speculated — a crane. It was all quite fuzzy.

But as TV elsewhere around the globe aired tape that revealed U.S. Marines playing a major role in the takedown, reports here became sharper. The flag-draping was shown, albeit mostly in stories about Arab reaction.

Even so, the iconic image that came to be displayed over and over on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN and MSNBC was a close-up of the statue falling, not a wide-angle of the M88 armored vehicle pulling it.

So it was with almost perceptible relief yesterday that anchors and correspondents reported a fresh wave of demolition to artwork portraying the missing dictator.
 
blown out of proportion

Here's another article which attempts to inflate the significance of the "statue yank",... one again invoking the fall of the Berlin wall. Even if the crowd *did* number 300 (it appears much smaller in the airial photo) there is nothing that can happen in a backwater like Iraq which can equal the demise of one of the worlds superpowers,... the end of the (first) "cold war".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83736,00.html

To attempt to portray it as such goes beyond yellow journalism,... it's nothing less than a slap in the face to anyone with any sense of proportion and history.

Why did the media attempt to give it such significance?,... lol,..Dubya wants to be Reagan II,.. and there's only so many Berlin walls to knock down,... a man's gotta work with what's available to him.

During Reagans administration, Eastern Europe gained access to western civilization. During Dubyas administration, Iraqi looters gained access to air conditioners.

*shrugg*,.. it's kinda the same thing it you have a few drinks and think about it.
 
Last edited:
one again invoking the fall of the Berlin wall. Even if the crowd *did* number 300 (it appears much smaller in the airiel photo) there is nothing that can happen in a backwater like Iraq which can equal the demise of one of the nations superpowers,... the end of the (first) "cold war".
That's your opinion. Who's to say that the fall of Iraq won't have the same sort of effect on the Middle East that the fall of the Berlin Wall had on Eastern Europe? Either way, I'd be willing to bet that the Iraqis would disagree with you.
 
Lebe -

If you don't like President Bush and if you don't like Saddam getting his butt kicked...just say so. There's no need to nitpick at the reporters and the networks for what they reported and how they reported it. All that is of little or no consequence in the scheme of things.

And what exactly have Iraq's neighbors done recently, or ever, to help the people of Iraq? Shame of them for letting Saddam stay in power all of these years. Eternal shame is theirs.

John
 
Look at the bridge of the nose on the gentleman in the left hand photo. At eye level you can see where his nose has been broken in the past - there is a clear "step-down" in the line of the nose from tip to forehead. Now, look at the gentleman in the right-hand pic. Yes, I know he's screaming, but look at the line of his nose from tip to forehead. Do you see the "step-down"? I don't either. Now, look where the base of the nose joins the face. The first gentleman has very little flare where the nose joins the upper lip. Over to the second man. Nice broad flare. Broad enough that it looks like he's been chasing parked cars.
Nope. The nose slides up a little bit and flairs duing such exercies. You can see the same step off on the second figure, except that is has slid up a half centimeter and everted to reverse the shadow pattern. When a person yells like that the nostrils do flair in such a manner.

You can demonstrate quite a lot of movement yourself by making a line of indellible marker (I'd recommend purple or green or other easy to see color) across the bridge of your own nose at rest then with your face scrunced up while you yell at the top of your lungs. You can use a mirror or a camera. :rolleyes:
 
Lebe, there are those of us who realize the United States government marketed this war to gain the support of the American people. And there are many of us that bought it, like a king-sized bag of new-and-improved Cheesy Poofs.
 
.

That's true, SkunkApe. If you sweep away the BS, you know that no-one really gives a rats a** about Iraq one way or the other. The government pumps peoples heads full of crap,.. gets them all stirred up by appealing to their nationalistic pride,.. first thing yanno, Big Brother is bombin' the puddin' outta somebody for something,... and anybody who doesn't step up and start cheering them on is a low down dirty dog! People support a war like this for it's entertainment value. It's just a great big mini series to them.

Grab some popcorn,.. pull up a chair, turn off your mind, and watch,...

"Iraqi Freedom!" (Part II)
 
.

No,.. it's a war to make a hero out of a very mediocre President,... and if a little oil money gets tossed around as a result,.. well,... that's OK too,... and if Israel is happy about it,.. well,.. it's good to have AIPAC on your side come election day.

That's it in a nutshell.
 
reasons

Here's what a former CIA analyst had to say about the real impetus for this war,... and he said it back in February. Now that the administration is starting to get the populace stirred up about Syria, it's starting to ring more true by the minute.

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02082003.html

It's one of the better "peeks behind the curtain" that I've found,.. definitely worth a read.
 
Billy Boy! Oh, come now.

Sure they are entire books about how FDR "knew" about Pearl Harbor and knew Germany would declare war on us. However, FDR did nothing because he was in the pocket of the Jews.

Delusional drivel then, drivel now. BTW, Bush said today that no militree action would be taken against Syria.
 
FDR?

I'm not quite sure that I understand the rationale for your insertion of WW2 and FDR into this discussion, Tejon.

Perhaps you'd like to start a thread of your own to discuss such matters.
 
Lebe, sorry, but it's a historical analogy. FDR was POTUS during WWII. WWII was a war to destroy the Axis and save the world from fascism. FDR's enemies claimed that he acted at the direction of the Jews.

Bush is the POTUS of the present war. This war is a war to destroy Middle Eastern fascism and save the world from them. Bush's enemies claim that Bush acts at the direction of the Jews.
 
Counterpunch doesn't qualify as a valid source.
GRD,.. most of the media that I've been exposed to has been EXTREMELY pro-war.
What media sources have you been exposing yourself to? Most of the CNN/MSNBC/etc types I've watched appear as though they are choking on a turd when they talk about US victory.

About the images in your link...the first is as the tanks were rolling in, the second appears that the statue is already down, the third shows a large crowd (larger than most "large" anti-war protests), and the fourth is too close to show much. Bottom line: they don't support your conclusion nor theirs.

I think Tejon was trying to say that just because you read it on "independent" news sources doesn't make it reliable. Remember, the Daily Worker was an "indie" news source, where you could find stuff you couldn't find anywhere else; mainly because it was bogus.
 
.

Why,.. thank you, Destructo, for pointing out to me what "bogus" is and isn't.

Let me get this straight,.. if it reflects your view of the world,.. it's legit,.. if it doesn't, it's "bogus".

How convenient,.. you're always correct. My congratulations.

Enjoying the popcorn?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top