Full Version: BBC questions U.S. version of Lynch rescue
Much of what was fed to media about event called false...
Ok, so it's coming to light that the events that were splashed across the media regarding the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch are false. Doesn't this strike anyone us offensive?
Ok, so it's coming to light that the events that were splashed across the media regarding the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch are false. Doesn't this strike anyone us offensive?
Hey, I know this story. I read the book (An American Hero), and I saw the movie (Wag the Dog). I'm sure her experience, no matter how embellished in the telling, was harrowing, and I certainly mean her no disrespect in this. But I imagine the Apologists will be visiting this thread with a few ready and choice tidbits for us. Stuff like, "dang foreign media baloney if you ask me."
I can understand not relying on intelligence from a waiter, ok. Given the source of the intelligence, their entry to the hospital was probably SOP, whether they suspected enemy presence or not. If there was a deliberate falsification of non-existent injuries, there's nothing SOP about that.
Looks like Lynch is going to get rich from the whole thing regardless...
I can understand not relying on intelligence from a waiter, ok. Given the source of the intelligence, their entry to the hospital was probably SOP, whether they suspected enemy presence or not. If there was a deliberate falsification of non-existent injuries, there's nothing SOP about that.
Looks like Lynch is going to get rich from the whole thing regardless...
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ May 18 2003, 02:13 AM)
Much of what was fed to media about event called false...
Ok, so it's coming to light that the events that were splashed across the media regarding the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch are false. Doesn't this strike anyone us offensive?
Ok, so it's coming to light that the events that were splashed across the media regarding the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch are false. Doesn't this strike anyone us offensive?
I find it offensive because JEEZ this girl just went through Hell & back & all this "this is false" crud is just the conspriacy theorists coming out to play like they did when Saddam's statue fell
I'm not offended or surprised.
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read." - Twain
And I read a different book from Quark: "1984." Don't trust anything coming through the tube.
I guess it doesn't matter much in the big picture if this story was exaggerated and used to manipulate public opinion. People will pretty much forget about it over time, even if the book and made-for-TV movie comes out.
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read." - Twain
And I read a different book from Quark: "1984." Don't trust anything coming through the tube.
I guess it doesn't matter much in the big picture if this story was exaggerated and used to manipulate public opinion. People will pretty much forget about it over time, even if the book and made-for-TV movie comes out.
BBC report from April 3rd
Pittsburgh reprint of Washington Post article
The above links are from shortly after Pvt. Lynch's rescue. There we can read how U.S. officials related the heroic battle of Jessica Lynch shooting until the moment of capture, despite multiple gunshot wounds suffered. A scene straight out of Rambo if you were to take the official at his or her word.
Lynch's Father says "no gunshot wounds"
That one official or others would lie to the media for effect doesn't take away from the experience endured by Jessica Lynch. She was still witness to the deaths of her fellow soldiers, wounded herself in the ambush and held by the "enemy" for several days, uncertain of her future.
As to the dramatic rescue, perhaps it was SOP as quark suggested. But, as he also touched upon, why would an official deliberately lie about wounds suffered or the conditions under which she was captured? Jessica Lynch was the only surviving member of her company, so where exactly did this account of her fighting to the last bullet originate from...? And there's a mighty big difference between multiple gunshot wounds and no entry wounds. Such mistakes seem less than faulty intelligence reports and more like intentional dramatizations for heightened publicity.
Pittsburgh reprint of Washington Post article
The above links are from shortly after Pvt. Lynch's rescue. There we can read how U.S. officials related the heroic battle of Jessica Lynch shooting until the moment of capture, despite multiple gunshot wounds suffered. A scene straight out of Rambo if you were to take the official at his or her word.
Lynch's Father says "no gunshot wounds"
QUOTE
An examination revealed that the 19-year-old private had "no multiple gunshot wounds or knife stabs," Lynch said, adding that there had been "no entry whatsoever".
The Washington Post, citing a US official, earlier reported that Jessica Lynch had "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23".
From multiple gunshot wounds to no entry wounds, bullet or otherwise. Of course, those who cared for the young private at the hospital said as much.The Washington Post, citing a US official, earlier reported that Jessica Lynch had "continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23".
That one official or others would lie to the media for effect doesn't take away from the experience endured by Jessica Lynch. She was still witness to the deaths of her fellow soldiers, wounded herself in the ambush and held by the "enemy" for several days, uncertain of her future.
As to the dramatic rescue, perhaps it was SOP as quark suggested. But, as he also touched upon, why would an official deliberately lie about wounds suffered or the conditions under which she was captured? Jessica Lynch was the only surviving member of her company, so where exactly did this account of her fighting to the last bullet originate from...? And there's a mighty big difference between multiple gunshot wounds and no entry wounds. Such mistakes seem less than faulty intelligence reports and more like intentional dramatizations for heightened publicity.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ May 18 2003, 01:45 PM)
BBC report from April 3rd
Pittsburgh reprint of Washington Post article
The above links are from shortly after Pvt. Lynch's rescue. There we can read how U.S. officials related the heroic battle of Jessica Lynch shooting until the moment of capture, despite multiple gunshot wounds suffered. A scene straight out of Rambo if you were to take the official at his or her word.
.
Pittsburgh reprint of Washington Post article
The above links are from shortly after Pvt. Lynch's rescue. There we can read how U.S. officials related the heroic battle of Jessica Lynch shooting until the moment of capture, despite multiple gunshot wounds suffered. A scene straight out of Rambo if you were to take the official at his or her word.
.
In the Pittsburg/Washington link you find this quote, "Pentagon officials said they had heard "rumors" of Lynch's heroics, but no confirmation.
It is clear that the the article was reporting unsubstantiated rumors from a source not known to be reliable.
I don't know how many here have ever been in a position similar to those in command in Iraq. Battlefield reports are sent 'up' and, like it or not, often embellished. By the time these reports reach command levels, the incident may not be recognizable to those who were there. This is human nature.
The briefers have to rely on those reports. They also have to respond to the 'right now' mentality of the press. That combo can lead to bad information being released. It happens.
As for the 'hollywood staging' of the rescue, try this .
To answer the question posed by UJ, no I don't find this offensive at all. I find her service honorable and her rescue heroic. She was severely injured on the battlefield, taken prisoner by the enemy, and rescued by her brothers-in-arms.
The briefers have to rely on those reports. They also have to respond to the 'right now' mentality of the press. That combo can lead to bad information being released. It happens.
As for the 'hollywood staging' of the rescue, try this .
To answer the question posed by UJ, no I don't find this offensive at all. I find her service honorable and her rescue heroic. She was severely injured on the battlefield, taken prisoner by the enemy, and rescued by her brothers-in-arms.
The BBC is about as "fair & balanced" as Baghdad Bob.
Ok... so many premises in this BBC story is mere wishful thinking... "that support" was lacking in US that support for the war was on the decline... to the point that president would order such a "look-good" opp or even a sublevel faction within the government... to say that this was all staged like this was a script for a motion picture comes man-made from the left's own imagination.
No proof... the fact that she suffered no gun wounds is about as relevant as OJ looking for the real killer or killers. Wow cares? There are missing facts in any story... the war is not a movie with every angle and prospective covered with 100% clarity... but to suggest this is staged... or exaggerated to extreme is non-sense.
On the other hand I did like the movie “Conspiracy Theory”... Mel G. was very good in that one.
Ok... so many premises in this BBC story is mere wishful thinking... "that support" was lacking in US that support for the war was on the decline... to the point that president would order such a "look-good" opp or even a sublevel faction within the government... to say that this was all staged like this was a script for a motion picture comes man-made from the left's own imagination.
No proof... the fact that she suffered no gun wounds is about as relevant as OJ looking for the real killer or killers. Wow cares? There are missing facts in any story... the war is not a movie with every angle and prospective covered with 100% clarity... but to suggest this is staged... or exaggerated to extreme is non-sense.
On the other hand I did like the movie “Conspiracy Theory”... Mel G. was very good in that one.
I'm not much into conspiracy theories and all that, but I had some serious questions when it came out she had not been shot or stabbed (which regardless of the story, is a very good thing).
But let's look at the situation. There is a firefight going on. All of her comrades are shot and killed. Presumably, the same people who killed them were trying to kill her. So, let's say she runs out of ammo. How would they know she's not faking it or setting a trap? What advantage would they have gained by risking their lives to capture her instead of just killing her like the rest?
Unless she never fought back and tried to hide instead. Of course, this is a debate for another time. Not one of us can say with 100% certainty we would have not done the same (if that were indeed the case).
There is a huge debate about women in combat, so a woman hiding and surrendering while every one of her comrades got killed would be a pretty big deal in dealing with that debate. However, we'll never know because she "forgot".
I smelled a skunk here from day one and nothing has happened to sway me. If she participated in that firefight, it's highly probable she would have been at least seriously wounded. It goes against basic survival skills for someone to walk up to a soldier they have been exchanging gunfire with and check to see if she's telling the truth when she says she's done fighting for whatever reason. It would have been much, much easier to kill her instead of worrying about it.
In my opinion (although anything can happen), the improbabilities and inconsistencies exceed the likelihood of what we hear as being true.
Finally, out of all the casualties in Gulf War I and II, how many ended up with amnesia?
But let's look at the situation. There is a firefight going on. All of her comrades are shot and killed. Presumably, the same people who killed them were trying to kill her. So, let's say she runs out of ammo. How would they know she's not faking it or setting a trap? What advantage would they have gained by risking their lives to capture her instead of just killing her like the rest?
Unless she never fought back and tried to hide instead. Of course, this is a debate for another time. Not one of us can say with 100% certainty we would have not done the same (if that were indeed the case).
There is a huge debate about women in combat, so a woman hiding and surrendering while every one of her comrades got killed would be a pretty big deal in dealing with that debate. However, we'll never know because she "forgot".
I smelled a skunk here from day one and nothing has happened to sway me. If she participated in that firefight, it's highly probable she would have been at least seriously wounded. It goes against basic survival skills for someone to walk up to a soldier they have been exchanging gunfire with and check to see if she's telling the truth when she says she's done fighting for whatever reason. It would have been much, much easier to kill her instead of worrying about it.
In my opinion (although anything can happen), the improbabilities and inconsistencies exceed the likelihood of what we hear as being true.
Finally, out of all the casualties in Gulf War I and II, how many ended up with amnesia?
I wish the Star still had their original expose posted online; but it cited the doctors who treated her in Iraq as saying her wounds were consistent with a vehicular accident.
Explain to me how someone who was supposedly SHOT can have no gunshot wounds and I will gladly consider this fact as irrelevant.
QUOTE
the fact that she suffered no gun wounds is about as relevant as OJ looking for the real killer or killers. Wow cares? There are missing facts in any story
Explain to me how someone who was supposedly SHOT can have no gunshot wounds and I will gladly consider this fact as irrelevant.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ May 19 2003, 06:28 PM)
Explain to me how someone who was supposedly SHOT can have no gunshot wounds and I will gladly consider this fact as irrelevant.
Specifically, to the facts of how this episode occur is relevant. Some reports like many reports are not accurate... eyewitness reports are sometimes second third or forth hand... and even eyewhitness can wonder greatly from truth.
But this is NOT the point of the BBC article.
One of the main ideas behind it is that, it implies a conspiracy of the government of the United States for purposes of increasing the support for the war effort.
This news article is not relevant in the context of "NEWS" because the full knowledge of the facts are not known and some facts may never be known.
The burden is not on ‘myself’ for proving the negative, it is on those that purport the prospective expressed in this so called News piece to do such. On the other hand if one by default tends to be believe automatically in governments conspiracy, complicit in acts of cover-up, and are in general skeptics of ANYTHING the government has it hand in, then the basis in the article is taken as truth and it is asked, as it was just ask for me, to do, to prove them wrong. It can't be done. (see logic/argument... section under proof under proof of the negative.)
respectfully,
PS And technically the memory loss is not "amnesia" it is memory lost due to specific stress... you can see such events sometimes when one undergoes surgery for example. people in such stress often recall nothing just prior to surgery even though one should. At the time they are conscious and are speaking to the surgeons, they have complete mental awereness. This is the time prior to counting backwards and the like. (ask a neurologist or surgeon; they can explain this better. This topic was discussed by several experts in the field at the time this memory lost issue broke and similar interviews(in various depths) were broadcast on FOX, MSNBC and CBS. )
The original news articles that came out regarding Jessica Lynch, like the referenced Washington Post article, are the very reason I put little regard in any news source that claims they spoke to a U.S. official and do not cite who it was. Name names or don't say anything at all.
I could make up stuff all day long, too. In light of the Jason Blair fiasco, that kind of journalism is unacceptable. I have always wanted to tap the mind of a reporter who is comfortable citing "an unnamed source close to the (pick your favorite government agency)" or a "source speaking on the condition of anonymity." Is it laziness - meaning the reporter would have to actually find other verifiable information when a named source is not available? Fear of retribution from that source? Just wanting to get the next paycheck?
What is it that allows reporters to sink so low to report rumors and innuendo? This is pathetic. I don't care IF the government is trying to plant false pro-patriotic style stories.* Reporters of these issues MUST be more cautious and deliberate when they are determining the veracity of information they receive.
*Ok, I care, but not in this thread
I could make up stuff all day long, too. In light of the Jason Blair fiasco, that kind of journalism is unacceptable. I have always wanted to tap the mind of a reporter who is comfortable citing "an unnamed source close to the (pick your favorite government agency)" or a "source speaking on the condition of anonymity." Is it laziness - meaning the reporter would have to actually find other verifiable information when a named source is not available? Fear of retribution from that source? Just wanting to get the next paycheck?
What is it that allows reporters to sink so low to report rumors and innuendo? This is pathetic. I don't care IF the government is trying to plant false pro-patriotic style stories.* Reporters of these issues MUST be more cautious and deliberate when they are determining the veracity of information they receive.
*Ok, I care, but not in this thread
QUOTE(Sharkguy @ May 20 2003, 05:47 PM)
Interesting article, care to expound on it a bit more?
Blanks. Yeah, right.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...target=HTIW.HTM
In keeping with Jaime's admonition, what more is there to say? No reasonable individual with any sense of military operations would believe that SpecOps troops are going to go into a potentially hot area with either blank adaptors, or, even worse, "movie guns." If such an operation were cooked up for the purpose of PR, somebody along the line would have enough sense to ask a simple question:
"What's gonna happen if we do run into real, live, shootin' Iraqis?" The potential downside from the PR perspective would scuttle the mission right then and there. Having worked with them, I can assure you that the SpecOps types would raise just that question...
One begins to understand why the crew of the HMS Ark Royal switched from the BBC to Sky.
QUOTE
May 20, 2003: The British media have been promoting a story that claims the U.S. commando raid to rescue wounded American soldier Jessica Lynch was staged. Part of their proof is the assertion that the troops participating in the raid were firing blank rounds. But anyone familiar with how military weapons use blanks knows that for a weapon to fire blanks it must have a large orange metal device fitted on the barrel. This "blank adaptor" restricts the amount of hot gas leaving the barrel when the weapon is fired. This provides enough hot gas in the barrel to operate the reloading system. The blank adaptor, in addition to being very obvious, takes several minutes to put on or take off. Now the Brits may fall back on the assertion that the troops had movie prop weapons. These also fire blanks, but have the "blank adaptor" built into the barrel via a metal plug with a narrow exit hole to keep the hot gas in (and prevent anyone from using real bullets in the gun, unless the metal plug is removed.) As for the rest of the story, some of the Iraqi hospital staff assert that the Iraqi irregulars had fled before the American commandos showed up. Earlier, other hospital staff had said quite the opposite. The British press are rather infamous for their creative use of sources and story angles to snag a valuable hot headline. Their story that American troops would go behind enemy lines equipped with blanks is in itself remarkable. What's not remarkable is that this story, and many equally off the wall (and later discredited) scoops should emerge from the London media.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomake...target=HTIW.HTM
In keeping with Jaime's admonition, what more is there to say? No reasonable individual with any sense of military operations would believe that SpecOps troops are going to go into a potentially hot area with either blank adaptors, or, even worse, "movie guns." If such an operation were cooked up for the purpose of PR, somebody along the line would have enough sense to ask a simple question:
"What's gonna happen if we do run into real, live, shootin' Iraqis?" The potential downside from the PR perspective would scuttle the mission right then and there. Having worked with them, I can assure you that the SpecOps types would raise just that question...
One begins to understand why the crew of the HMS Ark Royal switched from the BBC to Sky.
Ok, folks, posting bits of articles or links to articles with no follow up commentary does NOTHING to further this debate. Tell us why you found your link relevant to this debate, please.
I don't believe the BBC story just yet, and consider the U.S. government version more credible -- unless and until the BBC can prove, not just assert, their version is correct.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ May 20 2003, 04:11 PM)
No reasonable individual with any sense of military operations would believe that SpecOps troops are going to go into a potentially hot area with either blank adaptors, or, even worse, "movie guns."
I said the same thing to myself. heh. You don't even have to have military training to know that would be suicide...or at least a dumb idea...heh especially on that day...with the war going on full steam ahead.
I think the BBC went a little too far... I can't say for sure how it all went down.... but the US's story is certainly easier to believe.
--cheers
Talk about ridiculous!!!
I will make no claims concerning PFC Lynch's actions during the ambush and her wounds received therein, because none of us were there, or by the way, nor was the BBC. However, the BBC is now ranking right up there with the Weekly World News with their insightful reporting. There is no way on gods green earth that Special Operations guys are going into the FEBA (forward edge of the battle area) with blanks or Hollywood prop guns. The greater portion of An-Nasiryah was controlled by the Iraqi army and Feydayeen at the time of the rescue.
I'm surprised the BBC didn't claim it was all filmed at a lot in Van Nuys, CA.
I will make no claims concerning PFC Lynch's actions during the ambush and her wounds received therein, because none of us were there, or by the way, nor was the BBC. However, the BBC is now ranking right up there with the Weekly World News with their insightful reporting. There is no way on gods green earth that Special Operations guys are going into the FEBA (forward edge of the battle area) with blanks or Hollywood prop guns. The greater portion of An-Nasiryah was controlled by the Iraqi army and Feydayeen at the time of the rescue.
I'm surprised the BBC didn't claim it was all filmed at a lot in Van Nuys, CA.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 21 2003, 11:45 AM)
I'm surprised the BBC didn't claim it was all filmed at a lot in Van Nuys, CA.
Nah, the Van Nuys lot was being reconfigured for the Statue Toppling Scene at the time...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.