BBC: Jessica Lynch condemns Pentagon - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3251731.stm

Well, if this isn't a fine good-morning, America?She said she was grateful to the American special forces team which rescued her but, asked whether the Pentagon's subsequent portrayal of her rescue bothered her, she said: "Yes, it does. They used me as a way to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong." Um ... well?

After a while, I do run out of witty lines. Perhaps because exploitation such as the US government seems to have fostered brings a feeling of revulsion. I think the government's treatment of the Jessica Lynch story has minimized her service in favor of a propaganda glitz. This is a disservice to Ms. Lynch, to the people of the United States, the people of Iraq, and the people of the world.

But the government's version will sell more movie tickets. Wasn't there a flap about the movie Behind Enemy Lines? But the real story might just be too depressing, or worse, too "Movie of the Week".

I still disagree with this war, but I cannot fail to thank Ms. Lynch for maintaining her dignity about this. A dignified example can make her a role model, and not merely a propaganda hero.

Yup, the government did use it as propaganda. Whether she is a hero or not, I don't know. I wasn't there, and I don't know all the facts. Although, in my book, if you enlist to fight for your country, you are a hero. Combined with the fact that she was a prisoner of war, and raped, and she is only 20, well, she is a hero for me.

and raped

facts ? or just a little spin again :bugeye:

I'm generally of the prejudice that rape is something that just happens within the confines of what we call warfare. History may prove that prejudice to be a sound judgment.

I'm not inclined to doubt it on those grounds, but similarly I'm not inclined to award it any special degree of shock or horror.

Ms. Lynch is alive, and with good fortune this episode will not disrupt the rest of her life.

Well Jerrek she obviously thinks you’re a foolish idiot for falling for the spin. Is that your hero, a woman who thinks you're to feeble minded to get past the pseudo-rescue, with the ghost busters squad team, or the sodomizing of a rape she can't even remember... wow, your a archetype.

Whether she is a hero or not, I don't know. I wasn't there, and I don't know all the facts. Although, in my book, if you enlist to fight for your country, you are a hero.I'm wondering if we can look at it in the abstract.

- Some people find this war unjust and improper. Some people find any war unjust and improper. While I despise Dr. Seuss' wartime propaganda, the fact remains that the Japanese bombed us and Germany declared war. So it becomes difficult to comprehend the isolationist camp once that line was crossed. Nonetheless, I don't find the Iraqi Bush War to be so clear cut a case.

- These are volunteers. They are not drafted.

- If it is shown definitively that this whole war was a fraud, what then?

It should not diminish what Jessica Lynch endured, but is there a difference between "answering the nation's call" for a true threat and a lie? As much as I would like our soldiers home, they're in it neck deep and our leaders have obliged their service to much.

It seems to me that one must look beyond the mere idea of answering the call, and also to look at what that call is to. Gripping, harrowing is the tale of Iranian uprisings, thousands--millions--marching into the guns to overthrow the Shah. Surely, these are heroes ... but what am I to think, looking in from the outside? They raised Khomeni to power.

How many Germans answered Hitler's call?

Now, much history of a specific result must occur before we can justifiably compare the magnitudes of these examples, but we breached our nation's honor, we put our nation's credibility on the line, and while all war is hell, and nothing ever goes as planned, everything about this war isn't just new, as such an era might demand, but downright perverse.

Okay, so much for getting close to the abstract.

It's just tough to raise these to heroes for me. Yes they fought for their country, but I'm not sure the call was honest.

Originally posted by tiassa
I cannot fail to thank Ms. Lynch for maintaining her dignity about this. A dignified example can make her a role model, and not merely a propaganda hero. True that. The aggrandizement of her hardship over others' was disgusting, and she is to be commended for voicing her distaste at being used as a PR implement.

If anybody wants to learn what truly sadistic things the Ba'athists have done in the past, pick up a copy of Bravo Two Zero (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440218802/103-0180091-9620671?v=glance). The things those guys went through makes anything we've heard from the recent war seem like a stubbed toe.

I voted that I blame the Pentagon, although I also direct some of the blame at our attention whoring sensationalist media.

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm generally of the prejudice that rape is something that just happens within the confines of what we call warfare. History may prove that prejudice to be a sound judgment.
I'm not inclined to doubt it on those grounds, but similarly I'm not inclined to award it any special degree of shock or horror.
Then answer me this - did she get raped by a bunch of anal-fetishists? Because according to the doctor, she was only anally raped. Are we supposed to believe that a reasonably attractive looking girl, a member of the invading army, is captured and raped anally - but nothing else? What, they figured she was a virgin and thus decided to protect her honour?
:rolleyes:
It's a con job, same as the rest.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
If anybody wants to learn what truly sadistic things the Ba'athists have done in the past, pick up a copy of Bravo Two Zero (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440218802/103-0180091-9620671?v=glance). The things those guys went through makes anything we've heard from the recent war seem like a stubbed toe.
So why have serving and ex-members of the SAS said that the book is a large pile of horseshit, and that it's just not true?

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
So why have serving and ex-members of the SAS said that the book is a large pile of horseshit, and that it's just not true? Why are you asking me? I didn't write it. Also, do you have a link to a criticism or something? I've never heard of the patrol members' story being disputed before.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Why are you asking me? I didn't write it.
No, you just used it as proof of your point.

Also, do you have a link to a criticism or something? I've never heard of the patrol members' story being disputed before.
Members of that patrol have criticised the story as being highly exaggerated by "McNab", as have the Iraqis who were eyewitnesses, and as have his superior officers.

http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/archive/2002/05/07/swindon_news10ZM.html

The Question:

- Then answer me this - did she get raped by a bunch of anal-fetishists? (EI Sparks)

The Links:

1) Strong's Bible Dictionary: "Keleb" (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB36.htm#S3611)
2) Intro. to Hebrew Bible Study Guide for Quiz #5 (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Courses/HebBib/Study/hb_s5s03.html)
3) "A History of the Terran People" (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6073/conlang/terrhist.html)
4) "Devotee or Deviate: The Dog (keleb) in Ancient Israel as a Symbol of Male Perversion" (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2000/2000-6a.html)
5) Chicago Tribune: "Iraqis, U.S. fear surge in violence in Ramadan" (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0310250262oct25,0,1483991.story?coll=chi-news-hed)
6) "Learn Moroccan Arabic Online" (http://www.morocco.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=2291&pagenumber=2)
7) "Arabic" (http://www.geocities.com/faskew/Colonial/Glossary/Arabic.htm)

The Citations:
• "3611 - keleb - from an unused root means. to yelp, or else to attack; a dog; hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute:--dog." (1)

• "Hierodules
as ritual sex partner in fertility cult
sacred prostitution

Kadesha ('priestess' or 'holy woman')
Tamar
Herodotus's questionable comments on all women serving as hierodules in Babylonia

Kalub = temple servant
keleb = dog (in Bible for male hierodule)
possibility that male hierodules were eunuchs" (2)

• "The earliest records of the Terran people come from cuneiform writings of neighboring peoples in Anatolia, which is now eastern Turkey. The records are not of particular interest, as they only describe monetary transactions: apparently, the Terrans were rather skilled weavers of fine cloth, which the higher classes of the region particularly liked. It should be noted that I call these people Terrans only because that is what they call themselves now; until ca. 1000 CE they referred to themselves only as "the people," or when speaking of their tribe, used an emphatic "we." Around the year 3500 BCE, approximately 350 tribe members departed from Anatolia, leaving the vast majority of the tribe behind. They passed through Egypt, acquiring several Semitic words like keleb, "dog," and eventually settled in an oasis in the somewhat inhospitable Tanezrouft of the northern Sahara, in what is now Algeria. They arrived in about 3450 BCE. Why they chose to leave is uncertain; through the tribal lore which survives even to this day we are able to make several educated guesses. It seems a famine was expected which was to be of such intensity as to make life in Anatolia very difficult. Their ancient religion also instilled in its most devoted adherents a very strong and irrepressible wanderlust; it is thought that the Terrans lived in Anatolia for only 150 years before our group departed." (3)

• "Few would deny that keleb in the context of this passage is problematic. If it means "male prostitute," as routinely translated, then this verse is its only occurrence in the Hebrew Bible. The implication is that the "male prostitute" is homosexual. The New Jerusalem Bible, for example, which literally translates "dog," adds the footnote, "a contemptuous term for male prostitute." This translation has been based on what might be termed a Jewish-Christian prurient intuition rather than on considered evidence." (4)

• "Protesters massed in Baghdad last week to complain about the treatment of a woman whose bag was sniff-searched by an American military dog. Muslims consider dogs dirty and it was seen as an insult that a dog sniffed the Koran that was in the woman's bag." (5)

• "Words of the day

Theme : animals

moosh : cat (male)
moosha : cat (female)
kelb : dog (male) - also used as an insult to imply sordid behaviour - you would often hear "weld al kelb" : son of a dog" or "bent al kelb" : daughter of a dog.
kelba : dog (female)
hmaar : donkey (male) very often used to imply a silly or stupid behaviour or person.
jmal : camel
hoot : fish (a fish : hoota)
hnesh : snake (when used as an insult it means a crafty person)." (6)

• "kalb - dog, extremely derogatory when used as insult" (7)The Commentary:

I'm still fishing around for any of a number of speeches over the years by any number of anti-American Islamic clerics who referred to Americans as "dogs". They're harder to find with Google than you might think. Or else I'm just not thinking.

Aside from that, the whole point of all of that is that if we follow the word keleb around the Abramic world, we see that it is both an insult and an allusion to sodomy.

The links are in the order I found them; link 7 suffices for link 3, but still I found the "History of the Terran People" fascinating insofar as conveniently, there was keleb, spreading from Egypt (largely Sunni) to Algeria (Sunni). What cracks me up is that it did not occur to me that the word would have seeded in Egypt in the first place until just now.

Link 4 has proven to be a useful article for me. This is probably the third or fourth time I've hauled it out for Sciforums, and I can't say I ever would have imagined its use here. If you check out the article, sections 17 and 18, actually, will speak volumes.

The Conclusion:

I wouldn't go so far as to say an anal-rape fetish cult or anything. But it seems to me that there would be a specific significance in sodomizing the prisoner from the hated invading enemy.

It just doesn't seem that far out to me.

Edit: I'm playing with the second to last sentence. Changed "of" to "from" ... I'm still not happy with it. Hmm ... must smoke.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt

I voted that I blame the Pentagon, although I also direct some of the blame at our attention whoring sensationalist media.

I was thinking that myself ^_^.
The Pentagon floated the story but the media lapped it up and spread it willingly and added a few embelishments along the way probably (no i don't know any facts off my head but from experience it usually stands true)

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
So why have serving and ex-members of the SAS said that the book is a large pile of horseshit, and that it's just not true?

Wow whilst i knew that it was going to be dramatised and twisted slightly to the authors somewhat biased view (and given that joe punter has more hollywood knowledge of the SAS than real knowledge horseshit will be easy to pass off) i didn't realise actuall SAS members had commented on it as well.

Could you direct me to some of that i want to have a read ^_^
In the mean time i'll go google.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
Could you direct me to some of that i want to have a read ^_^

See the link in my post above...

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/archive/2002/05/07/swindon_news10ZM.html Thanks for the link. It sheds new light on McNab's account of the tactical E&E. Having personal contact with some of America's more notorious POWs, I can tell you that differing retrospective accounts are not a rare occurence. Every encounter is highly subjective, and in the aftermath, even close-knit squadmates can disagree vehemently. Not trying to cast aspersions on your source, just adding my own thoughts.

The thing is, I was using the book as a reference to the torture practices used by the Iraqis on the three that were captured, and how I find it doubtful that Lynch or any of her mates could have endured anything close to what they did. So, my point stands.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
So, my point stands.
Actually it doesn't. McNab's errors weren't just of the "So-and-so made a tactical error here" variety, he described things that the patrol just didn't do - attacking armoured units with anti-tank rockets and killing large numbers of infantry, some with his bare hands, for example - so none of what he describes is trustworthy.
That's not to say that the Ba'athist secret police didn't have nasty ways of torturing civilians - but that's where they had time and equipment and security. Which they didn't have during the invasion. So frankly I don't believe that Lynch was tortured. The facts don't fit that story.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
That's not to say that the Ba'athist secret police didn't have nasty ways of torturing civilians - but that's where they had time and equipment and security. Which they didn't have during the invasion. So frankly I don't believe that Lynch was tortured. The facts don't fit that story. That was actually more or less my point - that the Bravo Two Zero patrol endured far worse than could have conceivably been inflicted upon the 509th's field trip gone wrong, given the timeframe and conditions of their captivity period. I am not of the belief that the POWs this time around suffered to the same degree as in the first Gulf War.

So we're more or less agreeing in a convoluted way.