New article casts cloud on PFC Lynch rescue...

From the BBC

The one thing that caught my eye in the footage shown on TV was how nonchalantly the troops walked her out of the Iraqi hospital, when there were multiple reports of the soldiers coming under "heavy fire." Not to mention what the article said about the differing reports about her injuries (and why nobody questioned these differences). If it is a propaganda bit, it's a damn good one. Most of the American public was depressed beyond belief after the capture and exhibition of the POWs and that led to all the second guessing of the war strategy. Lynch's rescue bucked up the American public and united the country around the President and the Armed Forces.

Are they going to now cast doubt on the Navy Seals taking over that oil platform?

I can see them overstating what happened. Most of this debunking theory seems pretty elaborate to have been constructed during a war.

I guess you can go in and film everything then piece things together with creative editing.

If this is true, talk about wagging the dog.

Then there''s the compromise option: the camera shots were all faked (hard to believe camera men would set up a tripod to capture those shots in a supposed ""live fire"" situation) but the actual story is true.

So a re-enactment or partial one without the disclaimers.

Jesus. A POW was rescued. End of story.

WTF does it matter if the media was used to promote better moral for our country and troops? Thats the only thing most of the media is good for anyway, propaganda and revenue.

It was war, and I don''t give a god damn what was used or how it was used. If it made us feel better as a country and gave some pride to our soldiers, so much the better.

If I''m supposed to feel guilty or something, I don''t.

""WTF does it matter if the media was used to promote better moral for our country and troops?""

Huh. Well, shouldn''t the media have some ethical code that it must adhere to in every situation, even war?

How can you trust the media when they lie to you, even if it''s to ""make you feel good""?

What happens when they lie to you regarding the use of your taxes? Or a million other examples...

"Mex" wrote:
""WTF does it matter if the media was used to promote better moral for our country and troops?""

Huh. Well, shouldn''t the media have some ethical code that it must adhere to in every situation, even war?

How can you trust the media when they lie to you, even if it''s to ""make you feel good""?

What happens when they lie to you regarding the use of your taxes? Or a million other examples...

As opposed to the moral media we have now?
Come on, our current media (for the most part, I agree you can find good solid news without too much of a slant but thats the exception not rule) is nothing more than tools of the trade. You have to pick which bias you want and go with that.

You think the Washington Post and NY Times are the same thing in regards to information?

As watchdogs, the media serves a purpose. But don''t fool yourself into thinking that these watchdogs don''t have bias of their own. Don''t think that everything you read is true either. Don''t believe for one second, that many media outlets trade coverage for access, and by all means, don''t for one second, take into account that *everyone* uses the media for their own purposes.

Sure the media serves a purpose. But so does war.

I work in the financial markets, and the one thing that pisses me off more then anything, is when a client gives me some investment advice they heard on CNBC., Please, you deserve to lose everytime dime you have if you let a ''financial news'' show tell you what to do.

As far as I''m concerned, people are morons if they believe everything they see on TV or in the papers.

(edit: this is where I REALLY NEED the ""If it''s in the USA Today, and in color, it must be true"" :ROLL: )

Jesus. A POW was rescued. End of story.

In almost every other case I''d be arguing against you, but here I just can''t bring up the indignation. I''m not a real fan of how the media portrayed the war, but in the case of rescuing a POW I don''t care if they gave everyone a script and used ILM. There are plenty of places to find fault with the media, and I''ll happily shred them apart in those venues, but I''m just glad she got out alive. Firefight or no, those who went to get her and bring her home should only receive our thanks.

I agree with you Yomm, but it still doesn''t make it okay. Sure they lie, all the time, but its not something I condone and I am going to take them to task for it every chance I get. If they lied about this POW rescue thing, I want to know how they lied, and tell everybody I know, so they dont fall prey to this BS again. Im gonna read on this a bit, see what it says.

*edit* I agree Elysium, its never a bad thing to have that POW home, no matter how they did it. Still doesn''t mean they can get away with lying to us.

*edit**edit* I just read the article, if even half of that is true I am very pissed. Of course, stuff like that just bothers me, it feels insulting to people who actually died in combat, or are/were POWs. Your life isn''t dramatic enough, you don''t count. Not talking about the military here, but to the average American. Buying crap with her face on it, but all the other soldiers don''t count, because thier rescue/death wasn''t televised and more interesting than the latest episode of Friends.

Umm...

I''m with Yomm on this one.

And the sad part is that thanks to the new FCC rules, media companies can buy even more media outlets. That''s bad no matter if you think the media is too liberal or too conservative, because chances are you''ll be getting more of what you don''t like.

"Yomm" wrote:

It was war, and I don''t give a god damn what was used or how it was used. If it made us feel better as a country and gave some pride to our soldiers, so much the better.

Okay, seeing this bumped just made me think, you noticed in the article that it said the Americans wouldn''t accept her when they tried to give her back the first time, several days before the incident. If that''s true, do you think its ok to endanger American lives for morale? What if she had died on that hospital bed, because they couldn''t get her to an American military hospital? (of course, if that had have happened, you never would have heard about it, therefore it could have possibly happened before or after this incident to someone else) Is it ok to let people sit there and suffer so you can rescue them more dramatically and increase morale?

Okay, seeing this bumped just made me think, you noticed in the article that it said the Americans wouldn''t accept her when they tried to give her back the first time, several days before the incident.

If that''s true then it''s a serious problem. However, having not seen further on this in the local or international media makes me think that, perhaps, this is not the most accurate article either. It''s worth remembering that for as much as every emotional portrayal the military facilitated should be brought under scrutiny, so should those that proclaim conspiracy.

Maybe some in the press don''t want to push it further, less they mess up book deals and TV movies. If what the BBC''s saying is true, about the only person who''d be interested in making a movie out of it would be Michael Moore.

Oh sh*t! He said M.M.

*braces for impact*

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Maybe some in the press don''t want to push it further, less they mess up book deals and TV movies. If what the BBC''s saying is true, about the only person who''d be interested in making a movie out of it would be Michael Moore.

Because he''s an ignorant slob?

Am I right!

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Rat Boy" wrote:

Maybe some in the press don''t want to push it further, less they mess up book deals and TV movies. If what the BBC''s saying is true, about the only person who''d be interested in making a movie out of it would be Michael Moore.

Because he''s an ignorant slob?

Am I right!

Its spelled ""Am I rite?"" I hang out on SomethingAwful too much.

Also, I agree that theres no telling that this article is accurate or not, it was just a hypothetical question.