I found this in a post in, of all places, a general topic section of a UK football forum. I do not know where it originated from but it looks like a cut and paste from an internet news site. I wonder what your comments would be? I know what certain people in here will say, but try and keep it logical eh?Private Jessica Lynch became an icon of the war, and the story of her capture by the Iraqis and her rescue by US special forces became one of the great patriotic moments of the conflict.

But her story is one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived.

Private Lynch, a 19-year-old army clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was captured when her company took a wrong turning just outside Nasiriya and was ambushed.

Nine of her comrades were killed and Private Lynch was taken to the local hospital, which at the time was swarming with Fedayeen. Eight days later US special forces stormed the hospital, capturing the "dramatic" events on a night vision camera...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm


Moderator edit - reduce length of quoted text (2:50PM EST)

Hi Red,

Just for information purposes, the link is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm

*scratches head* you know.... the most amusing thing to me is that hundreds of readers from this site alone will now embrace this as being the "truth" simply because they want it to be. It is unsubstantiated, unproven, and comes from ... somewhere... but will be accepted as "fact". Probably as much as the official version of events is right now.

hey marquis ,i saw her parents repeating most this story on tv
NO SHOT WOUNDS !

MODS: Don't edit this quote please. It might have jumped off the website.


http://www.wilbursblog.blogspot.com/


American troops use three main infantry weapons.

First, there is the M16A2, a modern derivative of the old Vietnam era M16.

Secondly, there is the M4 carbine, a shortened version of the M16, often used by special forces troops.

Third, there is the Minimi Light Machine Gun.

None of these weapons can be converted from firing blanks to live, or back again, in a speedy manner.

Blank ammunition, when fired in these three weapons, is not powerful enough to force the weapons mechanism through its full cycle of operations. Because there is no live projectile, the build up of gas in the barrel is much less. When the weapon fires, there is no way that the mechanism will re-cock and chamber a fresh round. . .

American troops would be put in an awkward situation. Suppose, in the midst of this staged event, some Iraqi troops or Fedayeen irregulars appeared? How would they defend themselves? Clearly, converting the weapons from blank to live, in the heat of a battle, would be disastrous. It would take, at best, 2-3 minutes to remove a BFA, then vital more seconds in order to replace the belt or magazine of blank ammunition with live. In the dark, it would be very easy to get the blank and live rounds mixed up, too.

It is very hard to imagine how any Special Forces soldiers would agree to enter a combat zone with their weapons primed for blank ammunition.

Things are looking bad for the BBC’s story, but it gets worse. Much worse.

The BFA is large and brightly coloured. It’s a safety feature; a visible way of proving in training that no one is pointing live ammunition at you by mistake.

I don’t have the video footage of the rescue to hand, but I do recall seeing it. I didn’t see any weapons sporting BFAs.

Furthermore, fired blank shell casings look very different to live ones. Blank shell casings have a crimped end to them that is still clearly visible after the round is fired and discarded. So if the BBC wants to prove its story, it can visit the scene of the rescue and produce some discarded blank shell casings. Unless, it wants us to believe that the American troops picked them all up. In the dark. Behind enemy lines. In a war zone.

So how do blank rounds work in the movies? Well, the weapons used are not real. They are specially produced replicas, often based on the mechanism of a real weapon, with the barrel partially sealed. They cannot fire live ammunition under any circumstances whatsoever. This is how film makers create realistic scenes of automatic firing without attaching a BFA to the end of the weapon.

Clearly, no one will be carrying that sort of a ‘weapon’ into a combat area.

So what does this mean to overall importance of the BBC’s story?

Well, the BBC’s witnesses cannot be trusted.

And the BBC has made a huge error that a couple of quick phone calls could have put right.

The BBC may be guilty of seeing what it wants to see in another area too.

Early on in the story they make the astonishing statement that “Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.”

According to the BBC, the witnesses somehow magically know what American Special Forces knew or thought. How they managed this effort of mental telepathy is not explained.

At 1135 hrs GMT, Saturday, 17th May, I e-mailed a correction detailing my concerns to the comments section of the story at the BBC. I look forward to them posting it in their comments page unedited.

Jerrek,
The BBC didn't say that blanks were used, they reported that one of the doctors (not a qualified weapons expert) said that blanks were used.

Frankly, given the timing of the event, I'm unsurprised by the facts being very, very different to what the US military reported - what I am surprised by is that people think the military is going to report the truth at all! Why would anyone accept their version of events without question when they have a vested interest?

If I wasn't feeling so lazy today I'd go look up the prior topic on this subject that we discussed at the time of Private Lynch's recovery. The Washington Post story about her "going down shooting" and being stabbed at the time of her capture is apparently untrue. Her parents have gone before the press to announce that they don't know where the huge myth is coming from, and what they heard on CNN was a considerably different story than they were told, including different injuries (e.g. gunshot and stab wounds).

Our war dogs generally ducked the story at the time; it was hard to get any real discussion of the propaganda machine.

Jerrek, do you think the doctor in the BBC story is a small-arms expert? All he knows is there were a bunch of loud noises with nobody to shoot at. At any rate, the Wiblur's Blog is unavailable for now. I'll try it again later.

I'll dig up the links on Jessica Lynch's parents discussing her injuries.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

BTW, what is covering Pvt.Lynch in the video footage as she's carried from the Iraqi hospital?

The post asserting the M16 cannot fire blanks is incorrect - it uses crimped-case blanks.

...Fog of War, or is it Fog of Press? I think Ari Fleischer resigned just in time , before he would have to defend the current exploiters of the white house against all the stench of the sewers that is eventually coming up after the war.

1. not sure why text was edited, I have seen much longer texts in here by far.

2. Any gun can fire blanks - believe me, I know!

3. Whether or not this "version" is true will probably never be known. Maybe if we take it half and half, but even that does not paint a picture of bravado or heroism, more of press manipulation?

Rescue of Lynch met no resistance (MSNBC) (http://www.msnbc.com/news/919314.asp) The U.S. commandos refused a key and instead broke down doors and went in with guns drawn. They carried away the prisoner in the dead of night with helicopter and armored vehicle backup ? even though there was no Iraqi military presence and the hospital staff didn?t resist. In the tale of Pfc. Jessica Lynch?s rescue, this is the Iraqi side ....And you know, according to some reports, American troops fired on Pfc. Lynch's ambulance as Iraqi medics were trying to transfer her to an American-controlled zone. These things do happen, especially when the Americans are in town.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I had promised a link about Pfc. Lynch's injuries:

- Rescued PoW was "fighting to the death" (ABC News) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/World/Iraq_Lynchreturn_030403.html) Early reports said she may also have been shot and stabbed, but her father, Gregory Lynch Sr., told a news conference in her West Virginia hometown today that the reports were not true.

"We have heard and seen reports that she had multiple gunshot wounds and a knife stabbing. The doctor has not seen any of this," he told reporters in Palestine, W.Va. "There's no entry [wounds] whatsoever."My question:

Is there a part of this war that isn't built on lies?

And why not include this 15 May article from The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,956127,00.html)? It makes for interesting reading.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Lynch shot several Iraqis and continued to fire even after being shot, U.S. officials told the Post. She saw several soldiers in her unit die, according to the report.

Oh this is classic. And we thought the Iraqi information minister was bad. They fall just short of saying she threw herself on a live grenade because it would of destroyed the american flag flying close by. That is what happens when you quote unnamed sources. American War journalists are credulous to the point of incompetence.

Is there a part of this war that isn't built on lies?

I can't think of anything.

It is very hard to imagine how any Special Forces soldiers would agree to enter a combat zone with their weapons primed for blank ammunition.

Firing real rounds around a hospital is, like, sooo much better. The reality is all they needed to do was to ask nicely at reception. They probably would of made them a cup of tea while they waited.

what is covering Pvt.Lynch in the video footage as she's carried from the Iraqi hospital?Suddenly I'm wondering if that question is knowingly sarcastic; it's an American flag (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39082000/jpg/_39082179_lynchap3_203.jpg).

Important Note: I actually do not know when this picture was taken, but the link comes from the following story:

Lynch family silent over rescue (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2948274.stm)

And there's nothing really new in that story; it's a rehash of what we've already heard.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Suddenly I'm wondering if that question is knowingly sarcastic
Correct.
I don't know how US special forces operate - but I'm fairly sure that they don't carry American flags around as standard equipment...

Firing real rounds around a hospital is, like, sooo much better. The reality is all they needed to do was to ask nicely at reception. They probably would of made them a cup of tea while they waited.

Lol!!!!!!!!:p

If the soldiers were offered a key ....

If the hospital staff put up no resistance ....

If the Iraqi military had already cleared out of the area ....

.... then perhaps we'd better hope that it was a scam and they were firing blanks.

Isn't it a war crime to attack a hospital?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

That's what the Convention says tiassa, though we'll get a good look in the next few months at how well that convention stands up - since Franks and Blair are now both up for court appearances for breaking the convention. (Franks in Belgium thanks to the anti-ICC work of the US, and Blair in the ICC itself, courtesy of the Greek Bar association).

Blair faces war crimes suit (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2933140.stm) The Athens Bar Association says it will file a suit against Britain at the International Criminal Court - the recently created tribunal for cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The lawyers call the attacks by the United States and British forces against Iraq "crimes against humanity and war crimes".

They have listed a number of international treaties they say the two countries have violated.

These include the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention and the International Criminal Court's statute.

Dimitris Paxinos, the head of the lawyers' association, told the BBC the lawsuit will be filed within a fortnight.

He said American officials could not be prosecuted as the US is not a signatory to the ICC's founding treaty. Honestly? I somehow missed this. Although 5/23, the date of this story, was rather a stressful one for me; I don't get migraines, but I spent fifteen minutes curled up on the futon with static overload in my forebrain; eBay and PayPal have a couple of minor hitches that I simply didn't expect, but having a little gremlin sitting beside me yelling out, "Click that!" for an hour ... I didn't read the news that day. It was like an electrical knot inside my skull, a lump of functional numbness. (The vile and vomitous ejaculation I posted in Free Thoughts last weekend was a chapter in that whole thing; I didn't calm down until Wednesday or thereabout.)

But look what happens when I blink.

Oh, well. Strangely, I admit the world looks infinitesimally brighter at the moment. Maybe the overcast is thinning ;)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Ameriancs are suckers when it comes to their own courage and pride.

At least communists countries with no freedom of press know that what they read and see from their government (espescially the military) is most often forged, invented, biased and false.

tiassa, I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet. Let's get him convicted first. It's an interesting first case for the ICC though :)

I'll nitpick enough to say it will be enough to get him a fair trial to respond to the accusations. If, by some circumstance, the court decides in his favor, that will be the way it goes.

But I can't imagine the diplomatic response is going to be anything less than a headache. American spokesmen were barely polite about the Belgian situation with Franks; I can't imagine they'll be any more polite in Blair's defense, or the implication that Bush is somehow rogue that many will perceive; after all, it's not like we never were part of the ICC. Bush specifically withdrew, and I don't think anybody really wondered why.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Blair is already dismissing the charges...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2933140.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0%2C1271%2C-2718711%2C00.html

But it's worth noting that the reason he can be legally charged is the UK's own past actions:
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/28/132228.shtml

Where is she?? The last I heard she is still in the hospital and can not remember anything about the rescue, yet there have been media reports quoting what she said about the battle in which she was wounded.

Follow up ,She is still at Walter Reed .

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2003/May/23/LNtop1.htm

And her parents appear to have been told to shut up as well.

Another thing that smells cover-up with this situation is that the first female to die in combat (she was american-indian and a cook) was a friend of Lynch.
-I think Hollywood wouldn't of thought of such a retarded scenario for nobody would of believed it... ::rolleyes:


At CNN they showed us many professional pictures of both of them (most seperatly, but one together).

But then it hit me:
The quality of the pictures were far greater than normal familly pictures. It was obvious they were done by professional photographs.
The scenes are sometimes odd: Lynch on a jeep, then near a jet, then with her gear, then near a flagpost... on every picture she is completly alone, there is nobody else in sight.

It's most probable that we are being given excerps of a long shoot of pictures at different locations on a base, all done by the same prestine quality of camerawork.

Would the military take pictures of Lynch? Of her fallen female comrade before the war?
Why not?
But then you have to ask: how many pictures those the military take of its own men\women? Are women and minorities targeted in case of P.R. needs? Or is every soldier given a private photo session just for the hell of it?

Prisme


Picture of Lych and her fallen comrade:
http://www.jessica-lynch.com/photos.html
(familly picture)

Pictures of Lynch around the base before the war that were broadcasted by CNN:
(Looked at: CNN, FoxNews, Times, Washingtonpost, Google, Webcrawler, websites from France, BBC news and many others without success... I did notice that the only site that seems to contain pictures of Lynch is her official website. I think its odd to have so much difficulty finding pictures of a 'war hero' on the net. If you have better luck than me, please post address. -I will go to the national archives during the week and try to dig up the CNN report.)

Interesting article:
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=250278&lang=e&dir=news

A site with lies:
http://www.rini.org/article792.html

P.S.
Funny that the U.S. most irreprochable ally is the one making the claims of falsehood concerning this operation.

Lori Piestewa the young Hopi Indain girl who was killed , was the real thing. She joined the military to get off of the reservation. She was also a single mother. There is no doubt that Lynch and Piestewa knew each other.

I see the pictures as being put together for commercial reasons. Thos of good quality appear to be pictures taken at a different time. The picture of her under the tree looks like a high school year book pic.

Nothing was staged here except the overdramitized rescue.

My question is, is the military keeping Lynch quiet? , or has she sold the movie rights to her story and someone has privately asked her to be quiet for commercial reasons?

A story that is told repeatedly loses its potentail commercial value.

For some reason I have a feeling that Lynch already has an agent selling the story.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2003/April/11/LNspota.htm

You are mistaken about the pictures I am talking about. I said I didn't find them on the net, eventhought they were shown on CNN.
They are not in the sites I give nor the official Lynch site.

I am talking about pictures that were taken with only Lynch, on many locations on the base(s), by pros, pre-war time.

As for the commercialisation of the story into a movie, I have never heard of a binding 'gag order' issued from selling one's rights to make a movie before.
If she is silent, like her family, it is because of the military: they are the ones that own her during the whole time she was in operation in the Gulf... if the military tells her that her operations are now classified, she better keep shut or she will be court-marshalled.

"she better keep her mouth shut or she will be court marshalled"

Forcing her to keep quiet would be too obvious, as would a court martial. And the forced silence would be mandated by political interests not military. Politicians have run the "Iraq" show not the military.

When she does tell her story it most likely will be told in a manner that politicians want it told. But she will also be able to gain financially from it. A true blue sucessful American military rescue story will be told regardless.

Hell look how they turned a military disaster in Somalia into the "Blackhawk Down" box office hit.

Re: Jessica Lynch.

After being "buried" by the US media propaganda I would say "entombed." :rolleyes:

What a pathetic profession journalism has become in the US; you perpetuate and continue the thread (lies) or become black listed and unemployed.

Abdulla....

I agree that politics dictate the military, but I wasn't too far off when claiming that her relation with the military is what is forcing her to say nothing.

As for Blackhawkdown, I am always amazed how one can make a story out of a lie. Be it the Somalian tragedy that is muffled or the overrated jewish oppression in Nazi Germany.


P.S.
Abdulla:
Remember Ice-T:
"Freedom of speech... just watch what you say"

For once I tend to agree with Abdullah - the media today, in all countries, is so biased by political and religious will, that reporters cannot print the "truth" if they tried!

Originally posted by justiceusa
Lori Piestewa the young Hopi Indian girl who was killed , was the real thing. She joined the military to get off of the reservation. She was also a single mother. There is no doubt that Lynch and Piestewa knew each other.

I see the pictures as being put together for commercial reasons. Those of good quality appear to be pictures taken at a different time. The picture of her under the tree looks like a high school year book pic.

Nothing was staged here except the overdramitized rescue.

My question is, is the military keeping Lynch quiet? , or has she sold the movie rights to her story and someone has privately asked her to be quiet for commercial reasons?

A story that is told repeatedly loses its potentail commercial value.

For some reason I have a feeling that Lynch already has an agent selling the story.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2003/April/11/LNspota.htm

Abdulla: Lori's "problem" and the reason why her family isn't all over the media's front pages and in Washington doing tea with dumb arse at the Whitehouse is that she wasn't WHITE---or even a little bit Jewish! :rolleyes:

Abdulla....