Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Saving Private Lynch

  1. Sep 2, 2003 #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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2003 #2
    Of course it was made up...that's what passes for honor and decency these days!
     
  4. Sep 2, 2003 #3
    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.
     
  5. Sep 2, 2003 #4
    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.
     
  6. Sep 2, 2003 #5
    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."
     
  7. Sep 2, 2003 #6
    This is a perfect example of the government creating a hero for their media war. They certainly couldn't make a TV movie about teh soldiers who have gunned down innocent children, foreign reporters, or carloads full of families.
     
  8. Sep 2, 2003 #7
    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.
     
  9. Sep 2, 2003 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  10. Sep 2, 2003 #9

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Which report? The one incorporating independent witnesses or the one orchestrated by the military PR machine?



    http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7153144%5E1702,00.html
    Don't ya just love google?
     
  11. Sep 2, 2003 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The link provided by Adam.
     
  12. Sep 3, 2003 #11

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    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...
     
  13. Sep 3, 2003 #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).
     
  14. Sep 3, 2003 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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:
    No, it doesn't go into specifics, but neither did I.

    Maybe my statment 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: Sep 3, 2003
  15. Sep 5, 2003 #14

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Saving Private Lynch
  1. Jessica Lynch (Replies: 46)

  2. Private contractors (Replies: 39)

  3. Save Journalism? (Replies: 87)

  4. Privatize everything! (Replies: 71)

  5. Privatizing Animals? (Replies: 10)

Loading...