Black Hawk Down Helicopter Crash That Kicked Off The Battle Of Mogadishu 23 Years Ago

Black Hawk Down Helicopter Crash That Kicked Off The Battle Of Mogadishu 23 Years AgoTwo Black Hawk helicopters were shot out of the sky in Somalia exactly 23 years ago in the Battle of Mogadishu, leading to the deaths of 18 Americans and thousands of Somalis.

Footage of the helicopters getting blown out of the air by RPGs didn’t exist, only memorialized through the accounts of those present via the film Black Hawk Down in 2001 — until just a few years ago, when CBS News uncovered never-before-seen footage of a chopper getting hit and spinning out of control.

Task Force Ranger, a joint group comprised of Army Rangers and Delta Force troops, was ordered to seize the top lieutenants of warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid Oct. 3, 1993, after stalking Aidid for months.

The mission was theoretically simple. Delta Force operators would storm the building and Army Rangers would block the perimeter to prevent exits.

Intelligence pointed to a meeting of Aidid and his lieutenants near the Olympic Hotel, but shortly after the operation began, events took a turn for the worse.

After the U.S. ground convoy was loaded with captured warlord leaders, crowds of angry Somalis started to gather.

Rocket-propelled grenades took out two Black Hawk helicopters, forcing Task Force Ranger into a bloody rescue operation lasting approximately 17 hours and resulting in the deaths of 18 Americans. Dozens more Americans were wounded. The Somalis suffered hundreds — possibly thousands — of casualties.

WATCH: Black Hawk Down Helicopter Crash

Swati Sharma

Swati Sharma is an editor at “On Breaking”. She is a very enthusiastic journalist and has worked for many Esteemed Online Magazines and Celebrity Interview, thus gaining a huge experience before joining the team at On Breaking. You can mail on gmail teenbabe1@gmail.com

You may also like...

  • Waldo

    Let’s not forget how Operation Restore Hope started;
    With dumb-assed news crews on the beach with floodlights and flashbulbs, blinding the marines trying to sneak in under the cover of darkness.
    The day I lost all respect for all news companies.

  • Paul Johnson

    Yep, the media is always intervening and giving away our troops positions, putting soldiers at risk. I, as a Veteran, hate that!! Like embedding reporters in the Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Opening assaults. Remember that scene in Hamburger Hill when the Reporter is to he’d better NOT be seen at the top of that hill?? js

    • Sleddog

      I call BS on that. Embedded journalists have been kept on tighter leashes with every conflict since the Vietnam war. What you, and many other vets and soldiers don’t seem to get, is that not every person buys into the jingoistic rhetoric that soldiers “fight for freedom”. They are a tool of the state and if the state says you’re going to fight for oil, then you go fight for oil. There is the famous picture of Phan Thi Kim Phuc who was burned by napalm in Vietnam, running down the road naked away from the village that had just been bombed by Americans. This picture swayed many people to call for an end to the war. If there had been more free press in Iraq, they may have caught the torture of prisoners at Abu Chraib before it happened. It’s people like you who are aiding in diminishing freedom. There was a time when the press had all the rights to be there, to be the eyes of the people. Now everyone wants to do their killing in secret and keep it sanitized using drones.

      • Craig H

        Or we get Brian Williams inserting himself into combat situations where he didn’t actually go, to ride the coattails of those actually serving in dangerous situations, because it probably made Williams feel better about his bona fides as it served no journalistic purpose whatsoever.

        Paul Johnson is not wholly wrong. The day of the 9/11 attacks, we had our media anxiously trying to report the location of the president, even though at the time we had an indeterminate number of unaccounted-for aircraft being used as flying bombs. What purpose did that serve? None, other than to give journalists something to talk about and speculate upon.

        So it’s people like you that are fawning over and enabling people like Brian Williams to put himself above the truth. The press was never the eyes of the people. We’ve given Pulitzers to “eyes of the people” that patently lied to us, that covered up the Soviet famine to help buttress their own political leanings. that covered up how the pretenses under which we’ve gone to war were patently false (including Vietnam). For a guy asking for less naivety on the part of others, you seem to be needing a reduction yourself.

        • Sleddog

          Where in what I replied did I bestow the virtues of Brian Williams fabricating stories as a keystone stone in journalistic ethics? And yes, during the 9/11 attacks people wanted to know where their political leader was, this is not unheard of in times of crisis. To other issues like handing out undeserving Pulitzers for efforts that don’t abide to your clearly conspiratorial sensibilities, I can’t argue Tin Hat keyboard politics. Clearly you’ve got a highly developed sense of superiority and in the same breath that you’re lecturing me about the supposed failings of journalism, you’re aligning yourself with those who would garrote the press from reporting on anything involving the state. It’s not naive to behold one’s self to tenets like unbiased reporting. It’s highly cynical to assume that this deed is pointless and that everything journalistic is backed with ulterior and conspiratorial motives. There was a time when journalists upheld a code and tried to report facts within the context of opinion. Nowadays, facts are mere set decoration and we get our news from bloggers and fake news sites that care more about web page hits than they do about telling the story. Now where did I fawn over Brian Williams as you would have it, but I do believe in the rights for journalists to report their views, even if it costs them their heads to do so.

          • Uruzone

            What I think you’re missing (nostalgically speaking) are the days of the editorial opinion. When we were younger, anchors and journalists reported facts — facts they, themselves had often researched and questioned until they were sure; facts that were cross-checked by an editor before being published or put on-air.

            Apart from those well-researched stories, we had the occasional “Editorial Opinion”, which was CLEARLY marked as such on the bottom of the TV screen. As a kid in New Orleans, I remember the general manager of one of the stations looking squarely at the camera toward the end of the lunchtime broadcast and stating his opinion about an issue. This way, viewers knew this was not fact, but opinion.

            At some point, somehow, news and entertainment merged, and the result is that a very high percentage of news reports have some editorial opinion injected now — sometimes very subtly, often not. But either way, it’s just wrong.