Americans are no angels....they are no different than Iraqis when it comes to telling lies/spreading rumours esp during war....but I dont see anything wrong in that....war is bloody business and you got to employ every possible means to get upper hand!!! BTW, US controls world media so why not use it./....
Saving Private Lynch
- Thread starter handbrake2
- Start date
Silent_One
Newcomer
Deepak wrote:
If the US controls the worlds media the articles would not have appeared.
To keep a good US bashing flamewar alive:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/19/sprj.irq.bbc.lynch.dod/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/19/sprj.irq.bbc.lynch.dod/index.html
Sending a large group of soldiers into hostile territory where guerrella fighters have been known to operate with only blanks is pretty much a defacto putting your soldiers unnecessarily at risk.
And that is a rediculous assertion that we'd do that, to enhance the filmability of it.
Regardless of whether the truth of the matter is that there was no risk(which I don't believe), there was percieved risk. Up until a week or so after the fall of the statue, there was the constant "where are the national guard"? and "fierce resistance" reports. The Fedayeen stuck around and continued harrassing across Iraq, and it doesn't take much more than a lucky RPG to take down a helicopter. Hell, even now we're losing soldiers due to sniper attacks and other resistance from idiots.
If you, for one second, believe we'd send a squadron of elite troops ANYWHERE in the middle east (except on training missions where only US forces are involved) only armed with blanks, you're an idiot. Even more so if you'd think we'd send anybody anywhere in Iraq, in unsecure territoty.
And that is a rediculous assertion that we'd do that, to enhance the filmability of it.
Regardless of whether the truth of the matter is that there was no risk(which I don't believe), there was percieved risk. Up until a week or so after the fall of the statue, there was the constant "where are the national guard"? and "fierce resistance" reports. The Fedayeen stuck around and continued harrassing across Iraq, and it doesn't take much more than a lucky RPG to take down a helicopter. Hell, even now we're losing soldiers due to sniper attacks and other resistance from idiots.
If you, for one second, believe we'd send a squadron of elite troops ANYWHERE in the middle east (except on training missions where only US forces are involved) only armed with blanks, you're an idiot. Even more so if you'd think we'd send anybody anywhere in Iraq, in unsecure territoty.
POW rescue attempts are vitally important to troop morale. Wouldn't you fight harder knowing that your fellow soldiers will risk their lives to rescue you. That's the whole purpose of the "leave no one behind" ideaology. That's why it is important to people.GreenBeret said:I don't see why this is so special to Americans ? In wars, soldiers get injured, killed, and the fortunate ones get treated in hospitals as POWs, and the more fortunate ones get rescued. Happens all the time. Or you guys don't know anything about this ?
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
Logically, I agree with you on that. But when emotions are already running high, thinking about the ordeal that the POWs go through adds to their hero status. "Look what they lived through!" Logical or not, that's what happens.
All I know is, if my buddies are being shot by Iraqis faking surrender, and some guy contacts me with a story too good to be true (American POW being held) I am going to go in with full force to an unknown area and conduct the operation as if to expect the worst.
Anything else is playing with your life.
Anything else is playing with your life.
kyleb said:
No, Kyle, the blanks thing is the only evidence that the raid was staged. Once you take that out, this story changes to "while there is absolutely no evidence the Americans knew this ahead of time, it turns out that Pvt. Lynch was treated well in captivity."
Don't get me wrong: if that's true, it's a worthwhile story, albeit nowhere near as huge as the sensational charge that the raid was staged. Unfortunately, of the two sources for this smaller but still worthwhile story, one has already shown himself to be a liar (or at the very least, an incompetent witness prone to unwarranted exaggeration), and the other is his colleague. Both share an obvious motive for claiming that Lynch recieved humane treatment: if she did not, they not only look very bad but could possibly be in danger of being charged with war crimes.
Filter that through a reporter (and his editors) who, by including without any questioning the ludicrous charge that blanks were used, and by falsely attributing various incorrect rumors to on-the-record Pentagon reports, show themselves to be incompetent and severely anti-American, and a potentially interesting story loses all credibility.
In the way of an update (and possibly some closure) to this little joke of a "story":
The author himself doesn't think the raid was "in any way a staged event".
Eh? What's that? The rescue was not, "in any way a staged event"??
Of course, that puts the author of the article in direct contradiction with handbrake2's opening post on this topic, as well as CosmoKramer and kyleb's defenses of it. Moving on...
Amazing, that sounds as if it could have been written by Russ or me! As for the one central allegation in the story, namely that the rescue team used blanks...
And then he goes on to change the subject. Somehow failing to address the teensy problem that not only is "Dr. Blanks" the primary source for this article, but that "his contention" is verifiably false given the rather basic knowledge (for anyone claiming to be a military correspondent) that the guns used in the raid--and shown in the video--cannot fire blanks (without a large attachment which the video proves was not in use). Hell, I'm sure every single one of the embedded journalists--whose coverage Kamfner explicitly criticizes as US military propoganda--knew that: as their embed training presumably included both exercises with weapons converted to fire blanks and a primer on the weapons used by their unit.
But wait, there's more! What about the other (though smaller) "scoop" in the story, the bit about how the Iraqis claim they tried to bring Pvt. Lynch to the Americans in an ambulence and were turned back? Turns out that's old news: CNN reported it long ago, as did several other media outlets.
But that Pentagon spokesman who wouldn't comment on the nature of Lynch's injuries? Surely that's a sign of a cover-up, right? Actually, it turns out it's against Pentagon policy to comment on the specific nature of a soldier's injuries.
But the fact that they made a videotape in the first place! It's obviously the influence of Jerry Bruckheimer!!!!! Actually, no, the special forces videotape all of their missions; the camera is built into their nightvision goggles.
And so, in the end, this "story" is nothing more than a big unsubstantiated lie, tossed in with some old news that had been reported everywhere else, and tied up with some ridiculous innuendo and a bit of anti-American snobbery. "Ooo, those stupid Americans, they watch reality TV!" As opposed to BBC viewers, yes.
The author himself doesn't think the raid was "in any way a staged event".
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/cnna.kampener.lynch/index.html said:
Eh? What's that? The rescue was not, "in any way a staged event"??
Of course, that puts the author of the article in direct contradiction with handbrake2's opening post on this topic, as well as CosmoKramer and kyleb's defenses of it. Moving on...
Kampfner said:
Amazing, that sounds as if it could have been written by Russ or me! As for the one central allegation in the story, namely that the rescue team used blanks...
And then he goes on to change the subject. Somehow failing to address the teensy problem that not only is "Dr. Blanks" the primary source for this article, but that "his contention" is verifiably false given the rather basic knowledge (for anyone claiming to be a military correspondent) that the guns used in the raid--and shown in the video--cannot fire blanks (without a large attachment which the video proves was not in use). Hell, I'm sure every single one of the embedded journalists--whose coverage Kamfner explicitly criticizes as US military propoganda--knew that: as their embed training presumably included both exercises with weapons converted to fire blanks and a primer on the weapons used by their unit.
But wait, there's more! What about the other (though smaller) "scoop" in the story, the bit about how the Iraqis claim they tried to bring Pvt. Lynch to the Americans in an ambulence and were turned back? Turns out that's old news: CNN reported it long ago, as did several other media outlets.
But that Pentagon spokesman who wouldn't comment on the nature of Lynch's injuries? Surely that's a sign of a cover-up, right? Actually, it turns out it's against Pentagon policy to comment on the specific nature of a soldier's injuries.
But the fact that they made a videotape in the first place! It's obviously the influence of Jerry Bruckheimer!!!!! Actually, no, the special forces videotape all of their missions; the camera is built into their nightvision goggles.
And so, in the end, this "story" is nothing more than a big unsubstantiated lie, tossed in with some old news that had been reported everywhere else, and tied up with some ridiculous innuendo and a bit of anti-American snobbery. "Ooo, those stupid Americans, they watch reality TV!" As opposed to BBC viewers, yes.
Dave, my position is simply that the whole scenario seemed rather dramatized by both the media and the military itself. staged in the sense that they it appeared to me that they made a mountain out of a molehill, a bit like i consider the dramatic entrance of the president on that aircraft carrier to have been staged; sure he really landed there and it was done with a real plane useing real fuel but the way it was done was rather unnecessary. if you consider blowing things out of proportion the American way then i suppose you can consider me calling others on that anti-American, but i think our country deserves better than that.
kyleb-
I agree that the Jessica Lynch story was blown way out of proportion, for my tastes at least. But it seems abundantly clear to me that it was the American media that was to blame for that, not the military. And, what can I say: the media likes a human interest story, even if there's are much more important things to cover (e.g. a war).
Where exactly did the military go wrong, in your view? Kamfner's story implies that Centcom was behind all the rumors which later proved false/unknown (e.g. she fought valiantly before her capture; she was shot, stabbed, tortured, raped; etc.), but they certainly never issued any official statements to that effect. They released the video, yes, but despite the implications in the article it certainly wasn't a Hollywood-style guns-blazing production; rather, there was one scene of some guys with guns hurrying down a stairwell, and another scene of them carrying her on a stretcher to some helicopters. Whoop-dee-doo. Do you not think that was generally representative of what the operation was actually like?
Of course they didn't have to release the video. But considering (rightly or wrongly) how much attention the story had gotten in the US, I don't see why they shouldn't have.
Yes, the mainstream American media is too full of mushy human-interest stories that ignore larger, more important issues. But the left-leaning press, particularly abroad, is too full of snarky conspiracy stories that imply--almost always without any evidence--that all facets of the American government (and corporations) are nefariously evil, and that all American citizens are redneck idiots.
There are ways to think the Lynch story was overblown (and that the aircraft carrier bit was cynical politicking) (and that there is an annoying strain of redneck idiocy running through America) without blindly accepting a shoddy piece of "reporting" like this, which allows uncredible participants to make outrageous and inflammatory accusations without any scrutiny whatsoever. That's the sad thing: I naturally drift left more than right, and disagree with the President on virtually everything outside of certain aspects of his foreign policy; but I find the left today to be so hopelessly dedicated to nothing more than accusing Bush of being Satan's retarded step-brother that I'm drawn to the right almost by default.
And that really, really bugs me.
I agree that the Jessica Lynch story was blown way out of proportion, for my tastes at least. But it seems abundantly clear to me that it was the American media that was to blame for that, not the military. And, what can I say: the media likes a human interest story, even if there's are much more important things to cover (e.g. a war).
Where exactly did the military go wrong, in your view? Kamfner's story implies that Centcom was behind all the rumors which later proved false/unknown (e.g. she fought valiantly before her capture; she was shot, stabbed, tortured, raped; etc.), but they certainly never issued any official statements to that effect. They released the video, yes, but despite the implications in the article it certainly wasn't a Hollywood-style guns-blazing production; rather, there was one scene of some guys with guns hurrying down a stairwell, and another scene of them carrying her on a stretcher to some helicopters. Whoop-dee-doo. Do you not think that was generally representative of what the operation was actually like?
Of course they didn't have to release the video. But considering (rightly or wrongly) how much attention the story had gotten in the US, I don't see why they shouldn't have.
Yes, the mainstream American media is too full of mushy human-interest stories that ignore larger, more important issues. But the left-leaning press, particularly abroad, is too full of snarky conspiracy stories that imply--almost always without any evidence--that all facets of the American government (and corporations) are nefariously evil, and that all American citizens are redneck idiots.
There are ways to think the Lynch story was overblown (and that the aircraft carrier bit was cynical politicking) (and that there is an annoying strain of redneck idiocy running through America) without blindly accepting a shoddy piece of "reporting" like this, which allows uncredible participants to make outrageous and inflammatory accusations without any scrutiny whatsoever. That's the sad thing: I naturally drift left more than right, and disagree with the President on virtually everything outside of certain aspects of his foreign policy; but I find the left today to be so hopelessly dedicated to nothing more than accusing Bush of being Satan's retarded step-brother that I'm drawn to the right almost by default.
And that really, really bugs me.
CosmoKramer
Newcomer
Well, we'll just have to go to the source then and ask the person in question, won't we? That's right, she doesn't remember a thing.
ya Dave, the rumors from Centcom is what i was referring to as military hype, "official" or not. also, one would tend to think that the massive amounts of tax dollars that go towards advanced satellite surveillance would have been put to good use in determining that the hospital was not deep within hostile territory as it was made out to be at the time.
Yeah, because hostiles show up as little red dots, just like in command and conquer.
Any general would know that. sheesh.
Any general would know that. sheesh.
Dave I agree with you.
Well little red dots would help wouldn't it, then guerilla warfare (which was supposedly the strategy that would bring us to our kneew) would be a thing of the past.
Unfortunately guerilla warfare, is not really useful in a situation like was in this war, it is more useful after the war, to prolong and make people leave, of course by that time sommeone other than saddam but likely vicious enough, will be trying to seize power.
Well little red dots would help wouldn't it, then guerilla warfare (which was supposedly the strategy that would bring us to our kneew) would be a thing of the past
.Unfortunately guerilla warfare, is not really useful in a situation like was in this war, it is more useful after the war, to prolong and make people leave, of course by that time sommeone other than saddam but likely vicious enough, will be trying to seize power.
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
Of course I do. EVERYONE supports some type of war propeganda, whether it's pro war or anti war.
And there's that nagging little first amendment that I can't seem to ignore...
Similar threads
- Locked
