Jessica Lynch: The Truth Behind Saving Private Lynch

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the portrayal of Jessica Lynch's capture during the Iraq War and the narratives constructed around it by the military and media. Participants explore themes of propaganda, media distortion, and the implications of these narratives on public perception of the war. The conversation touches on historical context and the broader implications of the "war on terror."

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the narrative surrounding Jessica Lynch was fabricated to serve as war propaganda, suggesting that the military and media exaggerated her story for political purposes.
  • Others argue that the portrayal of Lynch as a hero was a deliberate attempt by the government to create a favorable image of the war, contrasting it with the negative actions of soldiers in other contexts.
  • A participant questions the reliability of reports regarding Lynch's ambush, highlighting discrepancies between initial accounts and later findings, suggesting that media coverage was flawed and overzealous.
  • Some express skepticism about the concept of a "war on terror," arguing that it is a pretext for geopolitical motives, particularly regarding oil resources in the Middle East.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the complexity of the situation, suggesting that while media reporting was problematic, there were uncontested facts about Lynch's capture that should be acknowledged.
  • A later reply introduces the idea that terror does have identifiable origins and nationalities, challenging the notion that it is entirely stateless and invisible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the nature of the events surrounding Jessica Lynch's capture and the motivations behind the media portrayal. Multiple competing views remain regarding the accuracy of reports and the implications of the "war on terror."

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about media reliability and the definitions of terms like "terror." The conversation reflects a range of interpretations and lacks consensus on several key points.

Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Remember when the USA military, news, and government made a big deal about Jessica Lynch, the army girl who was "ambushed" by the "evil Iraqis"? Well, it was all lies, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html

I wonder when the movie will hit the big screen?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Of course it was made up...that's what passes for honor and decency these days!
 
Most definitely. Lies are what got us there and lies are what they want to use to make it seem like we are doing a great thing.
 
Heck, the whole 'war on terro' is a sham, and an excuse to take over the oil fields of the Middle East. This isn't a new idea, but one that has been floating around the neocon community for at least a decade. The 'war on terror' is just an excuse.

Poor PVT Lynch got steamrolled into the war propaganda.
 
I agree. You simply cannot wage war against an easily recreated action. The only possible way to win a war on Terror, would be something like Brave New World, where every single person on Earth is drugged out of their mind and so they sit around happy all day.

"With a war that is endless against a foe that is stateless (terror has no nationality), invisible (it could be anyone), and ubiquitous (they could be anywhere), the potential for media distortions to become both pervasive and permanent is very real indeed."
 
This is a perfect example of the government creating a hero for their media war. They certainly couldn't make a TV movie about the soldiers who have gunned down innocent children, foreign reporters, or carloads full of families.
 
Originally posted by Zero
This is a perfect example of the government creating a hero for their media war. They certainly couldn't make a TV movie about the soldiers who have gunned down innocent children, foreign reporters, or carloads full of families.

Just a bunch of wagging the dog. This war to protect the world from terrorism, like the vietnam war to protect the world from communism, is really all about getting the incumbent president* "re"-elected.
 
Adam, maybe you should rephrase. Putting "ambush" in quotes makes it sound like you think she wasn't. Not even your article implies that. In fact it says quite explicitly that the events leading up to her capture are uncontested.

Also, this report like so many other erroneous ones during the war is entirely the fault of an overzealous media who didn't understand what they were witnessing.
 
Which report? The one incorporating independent witnesses or the one orchestrated by the military PR machine?



In fact it says quite explicitly that the events leading up to her capture are uncontested.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7153144%255E1702,00.html
Original reports of the ambush suggested that Lynch was shot several times as she fiercely fought Iraqi soldiers. But an official report subsequently revealed Lynch was injured when the speeding Humvee she was traveling in crashed into the back of a five-tonne Army truck as they tried to escape the ambush.
Don't you just love google?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Originally posted by FZ+
Which report?
The link provided by Adam.
 
  • #11
That's strange then, as Adam's report is clearly dated May 12, 11 days after Bush declared the end of major combat in Iraq...
 
  • #12
I love this story: she was ambushed(lie), shot repeatedly(lie), and fought for her life(iffy). She was tortured(lie), held against her will(lie), and only the bravery of the Special Forces could save her(lie).
 
  • #13
Originally posted by FZ+
That's strange then, as Adam's report is clearly dated May 12, 11 days after Bush declared the end of major combat in Iraq...
I haven't a clue what your point is, but I think you're trying to read more into it than I have said. This is the passage I was referring to:
Private Lynch, a 19-year-old clerk from Palestine, West Virginia, was a member of the US Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that took a wrong turning near Nassiriya and was ambushed. Nine of her US comrades were killed. Iraqi soldiers took Lynch to the local hospital, which was swarming with fedayeen, where he was held for eight days. That much is uncontested.
No, it doesn't go into specifics, but neither did I.

Maybe my statement about "this report" confused you, but my intention was blaming the entire confused situation on overzealous media reporting. I will concede however that the pentagon fell into one of the same traps: reporting before the full story was known. The other trap the media fell into was reporting on a situation they didn't understand (that applies mostly to the rescue).
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Greetings !

I think this was a big mistake. Yet, it can partially
be understood since no one was apparently prepared for
the level of media coverage of the war in Iraq and the
effect it had on the masses. The sudden realization
of these things may've caused this premature and exhagerated
attempt at a partial "solution" for this problem.
I would not be surprised if it were some ambitous
politician's Hollywood inspired BS that managed
to "slip through" and be realized when the government
was preoccupied with a great deal of much more serious
issues.
Originally posted by Sunfist
"With a war that is endless against a foe that is stateless (terror has no nationality), invisible (it could be anyone), and ubiquitous (they could be anywhere),
Actually, terror does have clear states from which it
originates and operates without which there would
be little of it left to speak of. Terror does have some
primary nationalities (and a religion :wink:) and it
is not at all invisible in many cases - just impossible
to touch because it is protected by the same laws that
protect ordinary people/organizations/countries yet doesn't,
at all, care for "playing" by the rules. To defeat it one
must bend and sometimes break the rules. Unfortunately there
are some short-sighted and foolish people who think only
of themselves and their own "sacred" rights rather than
accepting these rights and laws as guidelines designed to
achieve a general purpose of well being and freedom for
all people - in addition to those individuals, and thus
like any guidelines may sometimes not be followed when they
do not serve their purpose but rather betray it.

Live long and prosper.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
9K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
4K