Propaganda

[cut]

you all know about the iraqi farmer that was interviewed on iraqi tv during the war.. and subsequently interviewed on aljazeera after the war saying it was all a lie by local baath party members (not that it wasn't obvious).

Well this article is about the Jessica Lynch episode.

here's the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm)

"correspondant" is reputable bbc program that has won awards.

I guess you know how the iraqis feel about their propaganda now...

[Royal]

Interesting??

Guess the truth will out in the end - look at Scott O'Grady's balls up, or for that matter B20.

[Cpl Stumps]

In the story it says

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

Can any one honestly believe that troops would enter a hospital in enemy territory with blanks in there guns. The author might be a "respected" member of journalism but in my honest opinion the story is crap. I will agree that in the initial hours of the rescue it was reported she had those wounds but I believe the American Doctors in Rammstein later confirmed that Pvt Lynch had no stab wounds or bullet wounds. The date on this report is Thursday, 15 May, 2003, 08:50 GMT 09:50 UK . Maybe the reporter should have checked his facts on CNN back in April.

And if the rescue team only took one bullet fired at them when they entered the compound then that was one bullet to many. When U.S. SWAT teams go on dynamic entry they assume the worse, could it be possible that those soldiers "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade." Went in expecting the worst. Or was this reporter on scene running up and down the stairs with the Spec Ops guys.

The Times just canned a reported who made up stories, kinda sounds like this one is a little fabricated and meant more to bash Americans then to report the truth.

And lets just give some thought to the fact that Jerry Bruckheimer was part of the making of BHD. When those Rangers and Spec Ops went in to get Aided it wasn't so that some movie could be made about them 10 years later. Just as when the SAS hit the airfield in the Falklands I'm sure those guys weren't expecting a movie to made about them.

I'll accept that many nations and their people don't like Americans, but hey when the British ruled the seas nobody liked them, and when the French had a dominant role in world events nobody liked them. So go ahead, grip about us Americans, cause to some its a nuisance and to others it's proof of jealousy, to me it's just crap being spewd without thought.

Semper Fi
Cpl Stumps

[Duke]

Well said Cpl Stumps. The story reminds me of two stories. The first, during the first President Bush's presidency, he travelled to Puerto Rico. Of course, with him went a small army for his protection. Upon returning to DC, many liberal papers, such as the Washington Post, blasted the Administration on the wasted money and personnel used for the security. Many papers actually pointed out that the Governor of PR walks the streets without armed guards. WELL IS THE ****-ING GOV THE SAME AS THE PRESIDENT! Obviously not, and if a hostile force wanted to get to the President in PR, then the Pres needs to deter that threat with security. LIBERALS!
The second story, Elain Gonzales. After the infamous picture from the raid on little Elian's house by US Marshals, the spinmeisters at the Clinton Adminstration began stating the firearms the Marshal's used had BLANKS. BLANKS. When are BLANKS SOP in raiding a house? LIBERALS! Do they think we are that idiotic.

[He219]

Reminds me when LAX was shut down for 45 minutes because President Clinton was having his hair-cut on the runway aboard AirForce1.

As for Elian, it was the US Border Patrol SWAT team that removed him. He was considered an Alien; MP5's to meet the domestic threat. Like that really helped Jane Reno's political chances in FL. hehe

As for Jessica Lynch, I hear she put up a good fight. One shouldn't expect POW's not to be used as political pawns though.

I am glad though that the Iraqis realized the detremental effects that serious POW abuse or the lack of proper medical attention could have had.

p-)
He219

[cut]

In the story it says

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

Can any one honestly believe that troops would enter a hospital in enemy territory with blanks in there guns. The author might be a "respected" member of journalism but in my honest opinion the story is crap. I will agree that in the initial hours of the rescue it was reported she had those wounds but I believe the American Doctors in Rammstein later confirmed that Pvt Lynch had no stab wounds or bullet wounds. The date on this report is Thursday, 15 May, 2003, 08:50 GMT 09:50 UK . Maybe the reporter should have checked his facts on CNN back in April.

And if the rescue team only took one bullet fired at them when they entered the compound then that was one bullet to many. When U.S. SWAT teams go on dynamic entry they assume the worse, could it be possible that those soldiers "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade." Went in expecting the worst. Or was this reporter on scene running up and down the stairs with the Spec Ops guys.

The Times just canned a reported who made up stories, kinda sounds like this one is a little fabricated and meant more to bash Americans then to report the truth.

And lets just give some thought to the fact that Jerry Bruckheimer was part of the making of BHD. When those Rangers and Spec Ops went in to get Aided it wasn't so that some movie could be made about them 10 years later. Just as when the SAS hit the airfield in the Falklands I'm sure those guys weren't expecting a movie to made about them.

I'll accept that many nations and their people don't like Americans, but hey when the British ruled the seas nobody liked them, and when the French had a dominant role in world events nobody liked them. So go ahead, grip about us Americans, cause to some its a nuisance and to others it's proof of jealousy, to me it's just crap being spewd without thought.

Semper Fi
Cpl Stumps

sorry, but this is the bbc, and the fact that it's correspondant show means that it's been researched in depth. the bbc has nothing against the US and it's in fact government owned, so there is no way you can call this a lie.

a think that this is proof that although westerners my think that people in iraq for example are stupid for believing propaganda, but you guys can be just as bad, even blindly backing up the propaganda as "lies" and "jealousy" this is the bbc, anywhere you go in the world it's well respected.

I believe that there were no iraqi soldiers there.

[Seiyuuki]

sorry, but this is the bbc, and the fact that it's correspondant show means that it's been researched in depth. the bbc has nothing against the US and it's in fact government owned, so there is no way you can call this a lie.

Wasn't it the BBC the channel that was banned from airing on one of the British's aircraft carrier because of some misleading reporting? And, government owned does not always mean truthful reporting. North Korea news network is government owned and you probably all seen their version of the "truth," the same goes for some more other countries. As a matter of fact, I recalled watching a discussion on Fox between one of their correspondent and someone representing the British's electronic news media organization thingy, and the Britian commented much on how he desire something like the 1st Amendment in British's media because of the fact they are government own...


a think that this is proof that although westerners my think that people in iraq for example are stupid for believing propaganda, but you guys can be just as bad, even blindly backing up the propaganda as "lies" and "jealousy" this is the bbc, anywhere you go in the world it's well respected.

Nah...never said the Iraqi were stupid, the difference between us and them was that propaganda was ALL they heard, there was no other sides of the story. As for us, we got a perfect example in you, you proposed another side to the story, some made up their mind about it, I still haven't, well, the point is, at least we got options to choose from. Before, I would have consider the last statement you made, but after the debacle at the New York Times (which was well respected) involving Blair and possible several other reporters, I'm just not so sure now, I'll just wait and see what will develop, there is still much to the whole Jessica Lynch's drama.

[cut]

Wasn't it the BBC the channel that was banned from airing on one of the British's aircraft carrier because of some misleading reporting? And, government owned does not always mean truthful reporting. North Korea news network is government owned and you probably all seen their version of the "truth," the same goes for some more other countries. As a matter of fact, I recalled watching a discussion on Fox between one of their correspondent and someone representing the British's electronic news media organization thingy, and the Britian commented much on how he desire something like the 1st Amendment in British's media because of the fact they are government own...


bbc is the only one which is governement so we have the advantage of both. and if it was affected by being governement owned, surely you realise the british government supported the war, therefore you make no sense when calling that a fault of the bbc. The bbc is an exception in the british press rather than the rule, sky news for example is very much like the american channels often reporting things before they are confirmed just so that they can claim to be first. I have had the advantage of living most of my life abroad and I can tell you that foreing news agencies are no match for the bbc.

As for the comment you made about the aircraft carrier, that just compounds what you said about being government owned. the fact is despite being "government owned" the bbc is still capable of giving a balanced view of the conflict. Because people want to know the truth not patrioting half-truths.




Nah...never said the Iraqi were stupid, the difference between us and them was that propaganda was ALL they heard, there was no other sides of the story. As for us, we got a perfect example in you, you proposed another side to the story, some made up their mind about it, I still haven't, well, the point is, at least we got options to choose from. Before, I would have consider the last statement you made, but after the debacle at the New York Times (which was well respected) involving Blair and possible several other reporters, I'm just not so sure now, I'll just wait and see what will develop, there is still much to the whole Jessica Lynch's drama.

you are right about the iraqis and they did just get propaganda, I was using them as a some what extreme example to get my point across. I didn't say westerners believed they were stupid in that way. What I meant to put across is that in america as well as everywhere else, the press isn't always to be believed.

You say you had your options to choose from, but only because I am relaying this information on to you. most people in Britain and all most all in america will not know about this at least not yet. So what I'm saying is although we have both sides of the argument most of the time, we shouldn't take it for granted that we do all of the time.

AS for Peter Blair and the NYT that is a classic example of the advantage that bbc has over it's competitors in the US and in the UK. Peter Blair lied to sell articles and the NYT didn't notice right away despite people involved in the sniper case clearly denoncing the NYT and therefore Blair for making up reports. This is one risk of a private news company. There is a huge difference between N.korean or other such states government owned press and that in a democratic country in the west like the UK.


As for the Jessica Lynch story, it was a success and it was a good mission, but even before reading this article I knew that the US government had made sure it was filmed so they could show this success, because they knew it was going to be a success (especially if there are no iraqi soldiers), but then the iraqis made sure they filmed the downed apache in the same way, that was a success even if they did put a lie on it about the farmer shooting it down, which is a far bigger lie than going in guns blazing with blanks, which may just have been a scare tactic.


I understand if you choose not to believe this, but saying it some kind of conspiricy by the british press showing "jealousy" is useless and soils your arguement (not yours Seiyuuki). Demissing it because it would be unpatriotic not to is understandable from people serving their country in the armed forces, but you don't have to keep your mind closed to these things. And for those planning to join the armed forces, expand you mind for now. After all the enforces of patriotism (although very different) in iraq were the Ba'ath Party...

[Gordon]

Here are a few interesting facts relating to this post:

Towards the end of 2002, Reporters Sans Frontiers (Reporters Without Borders) published a worldwide index ranking countries based on the amount of press freedoms they offer with some interesting results.

The top 5 were Finland, Iceland, Norway, Holland and Canada.

The worst 5 were Bhutan, Turkmenistan, Burma, China and N. Korea.

Here comes the more surpising part.

The U.S ranked 17th, just below Costa Rica.
The U.K ranked 21st, joint with Benin.

That surprised me when I read that, I would have thought the U.S and U.K would have been pretty much at the top.



Maybe the reporter should have checked his facts on CNN back in April.


As to that from Cpl. Stumps - I don't think you can rip up the BBC for possibly getting their facts wrong and then say the reporter should have checked his stuff on CNN .... which, as we all know, is the fount of all that's totally truthful in the international media.

Also about the Jerry Bruckheimer business, I heard that he had been hired by the US government to help them produce the footage from the Gulf that was going to be put on TV ... now that's just what I heard / read for all I know it could be a load of bull.

[cut]

Here are a few interesting facts relating to this post:

Towards the end of 2002, Reporters Sans Frontiers (Reporters Without Borders) published a worldwide index ranking countries based on the amount of press freedoms they offer with some interesting results.

The top 5 were Finland, Iceland, Norway, Holland and Canada.

The worst 5 were Bhutan, Turkmenistan, Burma, China and N. Korea.

Here comes the more surpising part.

The U.S ranked 17th, just below Costa Rica.
The U.K ranked 21st, joint with Benin.

That surprised me when I read that, I would have thought the U.S and U.K would have been pretty much at the top.



Maybe the reporter should have checked his facts on CNN back in April.


As to that from Cpl. Stumps - I don't think you can rip up the BBC for possibly getting their facts wrong and then say the reporter should have checked his stuff on CNN .... which, as we all know, is the fount of all that's totally truthful in the international media.

Also about the Jerry Bruckheimer business, I heard that he had been hired by the US government to help them produce the footage from the Gulf that was going to be put on TV ... now that's just what I heard / read for all I know it could be a load of bull.

good point and I will take that into account but "reporter sans frontiere's"
estimate is most likely to have been brought down by the large britsh tabloid press, than the bbc, based solely on the bbc it would have been very different, I am sure of that.

[Sabre]

I have not see the Correspondant programme in question, but based on my expeirence of it I would be inclined to believe them.

All journalists screw up military facts. In this case, a journalist interviewing a civilian is more than likely to get details like 'blanks' wrong.

The Iraqi might have meant flashbangs (do you know the arabic for blank?), I doubt that troops would have gone in there with out live ammunition.

The fact that it was video-ed does imply that it could have been set up.

What gets me is the ambulance bit. Firing on an ambulance is most definately against the articles of war and could get you chucked in the glasshouse.

As for the mistreating of Pvt. Lynch, I didn't believe that Iraqi Dr.'s would have done so. I am glad to hear that it is untrue.

This is not a criticism of the US, it's just a publicity stunt that has been exposed. Not that that will stop the US media. There will still be the "I went to school with Jessica, and it was obvious that she would survive anything..." crowd on talk shows.

[cut]

yeah, the stuff the iraqi medical staff said about the firing and etc, can be questioned but the medical facts such as the injuries and treatment to jessica lynch is more precise.

a publicity stunt in war by the government.... sounds like propaganda, well it would be if were an non-western country right?

and as for that Reporters Sans Frontiers (Reporters Without Borders) list/index, it's got nothing to do with the quality of the press or there stories it's about how the press is treated the reason why the UK is at number 21 is because they arrested a photographer named Stalingrad O'Neil on terrorist-linked suspitions when he arrived from Belfast, N.I.
..big deal, it has nothing to do with press credibility though.

[martinexsquaddie]

The BBC is anything but state controlled whatever party is in power hates it. Its is paid for by the TV licence which you have to pay or go to jail true. It is an extremely good media output its world service radio is second to none. I had a platoon SGT who banned us watching the bbc news on the grounds they were communist but he was mad he is a major now so serious mental health issues no bar to a career in her majestys armed forces.
As for they knew the place had no iraqi soldiers in it at they same time were not iraqi soldiers wearing civillian clothing.

[Cpl Stumps]

First off in my "humble" opinion all media is around for one reason to glorify events and to generate ratings. There was a line in a R. De Niro film where a news producer/reporter character said "If it bleeds it leads." This about sums up all new agencies, here in the States and across the pond.

My issues are with certain aspects of the article. But it seems that some think I and possibly other Americans are so blind, so dim that we can't see beyond our own noses and search for the truth.

Do I think that the U.S. Military engaged in propangda-DUH! hasn't every military since the dawn of warfare done something like this. But what I find hard to believe is that at a hospital in enemy territory, (my assumption is based off the article in which the reporter said that the doctors tried to drive Pvt. Lynch to the American positions and America's prized possesion was almost killed by Marines, that the hospital was in enemy territory) that any sane person would honestly enter that situation with out live ammo. I was a pogue in the Marines and I would have known enough to carry live ammo. I mean come on the whole world has said it, We Americans are just war mongers, so why wouldn't we carry live ammo so "We could go cap us some more bad guys, cause we all want bodycounts like Rambo!!" America like every other country has had awesome successes in military action, but when we screw up, we screw up GOOD (Desert One comes to mind) so given the history of successes does anybody honestly believe that experienced operators would go into any potential sitaution with blanks, when I as a former papar pusher wouldn't have.

As for the filming of the Jessica Lynch rescue because the U.S. Gov't knew it was going to be a success. I am aware that they had helicopters filming the raid in Somalia, I haven't seen any of the footage. There were UAVs overhead during Operation Anaconda when the Navy Seal was killed, haven't seen that footage. The fact is that cameras are everywhere today in military conflict. The comment about the filming gives some logic to the theory that this was a "Successful" mission before it even launched, but one can't believe that when you realize how many things could have gone wrong. Did the U.S. Military use the footage after it had come out that the raid was successful-hell yes. Why because every news agency in the world for days had been gripping about how bad the war was going. But I watched the Sky News coverage at 2 am when they were on the berm with the Marines live. What if an Iraqi shell landed near by and wiped out a platoon or two, does anybody think that I or another American would have sat there and gone "Gee, that can't be real, cause in the Movies the good guys never lose, so that must be some B.S. British American bashing!!"

So my point is this, I don't specifically go out and find something wrong with the Brits, or the French or anybody else. I'm just finding it hard to stomach this attitude that we're all dumb rednecks who drink beer and lust after our second cousins. And to be quite honest this attitude isn't just because of this war. When I was over in Malta in '97 I faced this same anti-American sentiment from British and Canadian Nationals.

So yes we (Americans) just like others (Non-Americans) fall for drama in the news. And yes we just like others have brains and can take a step back and go "Hmm some things don't jive." Somebody wants to defend that article or any other one that comes out and denounces Americans because some American like myself questions it, fine support it. But practice what you preach and examine it yourself. Again this is my **dumb** American opinion and I totally support anybody elses opinion, I just don't have to agree with it, just like you don't have to agree with mine.

[cut]

Cpl Stumps:
I don't think anyone who will watch that program or the program makers would ever believe or suggest that americans are dumb because of this. I mean how can you know it's a publicity stunt or whatever without being told that there weren't iraqi forces in the hospital as they claim.This program is just as much for americans as it is for non americans. It's free media saying what's going on not an insult to americans. You are taking it as an insult rather than it being one. It saddens me to think that the BBC would be anti-american.
I'm not denying that Americans as well as other westerners face resentment in many places but it's no reason to start suspecting each other.
Besides many attacks from foreigners is against the government or more precisely the Bush administration. You saw iraqis saying "I have nothing against the american people, they are very good people, but bush is a terrorist" during the bombing of baghdad.

And you say you watched Sky news, which is british did you feel insulted of belittled by them?

[Duke]

I realize now that the BBC is PROPAGANDA. The thing is owned and controlled by the British government, who was not whole heartedly supportful of this war.

[cut]

are you kidding me? the government ? that is the party in power didn't support the war? the government has no say in what goes in the news anyway.

both the conservative and the Labour party supported the war..

[He219]

Cut, don't believe everything you read or hear in the media. That is the true lesson. I think of CNN ****ouncing Al Gore the winner, wait, George Bush, wait Al Gore again.....hehehe

That article you wrote relied on the personal opinions of Iraqis and their account and observation of how the operation went down. Of course if was a media sensation - the first US female POW rescued behind enemy lines. Goo for morale. Let us have it unless you resent that. I certainly don't believe they went in with BLANKS. That statement alone damages the Iraqi Dr Anmar Uday's credibility....

p-)
He219

[cut]

Cut, don't believe everything you read or hear in the media. That is the true lesson. I think of CNN ****ouncing Al Gore the winner, wait, George Bush, wait Al Gore again.....hehehe

That article you wrote relied on the personal opinions of Iraqis and their account and observation of how the operation went down. Of course if was a media sensation - the first US female POW rescued behind enemy lines. Goo for morale. Let us have it unless you resent that. I certainly don't believe they went in with BLANKS. That statement alone damages the Iraqi Dr Anmar Uday's credibility....

p-)
He219

I dont believe everything I read in the press and nor should you especially about the rescue of Pvt Lynch.
The fact that they made a whole program on this means something, I don't give a **** about the details such as them firing blanks and so on. because a lot of that came from iraqis civilians but the story does cast doubt on what the british and world media and the Bush government reported/said about the incident.

is that wrong, or should I only believ the american media?

[Duke]

are you kidding me? the government ? that is the party in power didn't support the war? the government has no say in what goes in the news anyway.

both the conservative and the Labour party supported the war..

Cut you are honestly immature and naive. Do you really think that the government or any government doesn't try to influence the press; particularly, a government who owns a news agency. Are you Axl? Seriously, you sound so much like his spurious logic.
Again why doesn't my quote button work?

[XASA]

The first casualty of war is the truth.

[cut]

Cut you are honestly immature and naive. Do you really think that the government or any government doesn't try to influence the press; particularly, a government who owns a news agency. Are you Axl? Seriously, you sound so much like his spurious logic.
Again why doesn't my quote button work?

immature and naive? ah c'mon you say that everytime you disagree with someone. If I'm immature and naive you're out-of-it and single-minded (not to mention a ludite for not manging to get the quote button. Actually I don't really mean that I have respect for you duke. You are just stereo typing the BBC as a communist-style press which is controlled by the government. the BBC would be exposed by the countries independent media if it was ever used as a tool by the government it would be impossible. The british government doesn't abuse the BBC. if it wants to use the press as a weapon it has the beat the newspapers using spin-doctors. Why would they need them if they could just use a public company.

and no I'm not axl

[cut]

The first casualty of war is the truth.

precisely, on all sides..

[Cpl Stumps]

Cut,

As I thought I illustrated in my other post I don't think you should believe any media wholly. As for the reason why I might feel that this BBC article is "American Bashing" comes from the fact that I check on the current events alot. I watch the news at home and I check the different sites during the day on the net. Someone can correct me on this, but I've yet to see an American reporter file something about British conduct in the War, ok except for the report about the SBS escaping to Syria (and that was a positive report), and I think the AP filed that. But I don't go home at night and see Dan Rather on T.V. going "Those rascally Brits are at it again, today we discovered that they...such and such." So my question is what is the preoccupation of the BBC finding problems with us. Cut, I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that your not American. So why don't you go find some article about how some British unit screwed up or if your not British bring to light some screw up from your countries military and give it equal play under the article you posted about Americans, because I just keep seeing article after article about how we do things wrong this way and that. And as for Sky News, I didn't feel their reporting bashed Americans, but here you bring us an article from the 15 of May stating all the supposed lies about the raid and you keep pointing out the nature of her injuries and I'm saying that I heard and saw on the news some days or weeks after her rescue that she didn't have those injuries that she had broken bones. Her father even said she didn't have those wounds on either Fox or CNN. Yet you brought an article from the 15th of May like this is some great revelation for us Americans. Again, go find some articles on the great misunderstandings, lies, propaganda and screw ups of some other country and share them and then it won't seem like an American bash session.

[cut]

It's not calling it a screw up, more a publicity stunt, I could find you plenty of articles about screw ups by any troops the bbc probably have plenty. And I dont always bring up anti-americain issues if you take a look in the tony blair Moh thread we're discussing the Bloody Sunday murders by british troops which was a MAJOR **** up by the British army.

Reading a lot of news websites as you do, I get the impression that the american media don't give a **** about british troops in the gulf even though there were 45 000 there, so maybe that's why you haven't found an article in the american press criticising british troops. true the british are doing less and are not as spread out as american and some such as the royal marines have more experience in this type of situation having done tours of duty in N.I. as opposed to fresh faced marines who have just experienced their first combat experiance and are trained to "kill kill kill". But then of course there are highly trained US troops also.

As someone who reads a lot of news sites are you not intrested in articles that offer different perspectives? This goes against the grain of normal bbc articles anyway.

[Cpl Stumps]

Cut,

I got news for you a large part of the American public doesn't give two cents about the U.S. Military over in Iraq. I'm not trying to put down any patriotic Americans, but over here Time Magazine has pics of Matrix 2 on it. The war is a side show. Reports come in that a Marine dies in an armoury explosion and the majority of Americans don't even think twice. In my opinion Americans have a love/hate relationship with our military, they love us when we rescue Pvt Lynch but they hate us when we kill a car load of Iraqis. The majority of my friends are Marines I served with, when I call this one buddy up and talk about the war his only response, "Sucks to be them" and then tells me about the crap he has to go through being a cop. So if a large majority of Americans don't care about our military why the hell should they care about yours.

[cut]

well the rest of the world cares about Iraq, and american forces only two american news sites publish the names of both american and british soldiers fighting in iraq, in Britain all the dead soldiers are named, we care about both american as much as iraqi civilians.


british iraq **** up as requested (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3000651.stm)

if the bbc is so anti american why publish their responses? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/read_your_comments/3034009.stm)

[Cpl Stumps]

:D

[Duke]

Cut, I have two points for you. First, using Google search hits to correlate american and european corruption shows both ignorance and naiveté, especially when you factor in language. Is the english word "bribe" a cognate for all european words with the same definition? Furthermore, is there some study I haven't read that equates Google search hits and factual information?? (Please post study in your reply.)
Lastly, in the same thread, where you use this Google search, you yourself can't operate the quote button.

[Duke]

Cut you are honestly immature and naive. Do you really think that the government or any government doesn't try to influence the press; particularly, a government who owns a news agency. Are you Axl? Seriously, you sound so much like his spurious logic.
Again why doesn't my quote button work?

immature and naive? ah c'mon you say that everytime you disagree with someone. If I'm immature and naive you're out-of-it and single-minded (not to mention a ludite for not manging to get the quote button. Actually I don't really mean that I have respect for you duke. You are just stereo typing the BBC as a communist-style press which is controlled by the government. the BBC would be exposed by the countries independent media if it was ever used as a tool by the government it would be impossible. The british government doesn't abuse the BBC. if it wants to use the press as a weapon it has the beat the newspapers using spin-doctors. Why would they need them if they could just use a public company.

and no I'm not axl

NOW NO ONE CAN STOP ME! A GREEN BOARD FOR THE QUOTE BUTTON!

[cut]

wow, ok I take ludite back...

[He219]

Cut, The report the BBC neglected to reference...

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/ac95bc775efc34c685256ab50049d458/609bf1993feef1bc85256d01004a4481?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,Lynch Notice the date!


An article written by Sgt. Joseph R. Chenelly and posted on the Marines' Web site describes how Mohammad, a lawyer from Nasiriya, helped U.S. forces carry out the raid that freed the 19-year-old supply clerk Wednesday.

While visiting his wife, a nurse at Saddam Hussein Hospital, Mohammad noticed an increase in security and asked one of the doctors what was going on.

"He told me there was a woman American soldier there," Mohammad said.

After the doctor showed Mohammad where Lynch was being held, Mohammad said he saw an Iraqi colonel slap Lynch twice.

"My heart stopped," he said. "I knew then I must help her be saved. I decided I must go to tell the Americans."

That day, Mohammad walked 10 kilometers [about six miles] to a Marine checkpoint. He approached with his hands in the air and told them he had "important information about Jessica."

The Marines asked him to return to the hospital to gather information about the building and about Lynch's location inside.

"I went to see the security," he said. "I watched where they stood, where they sat, where they ate and when they slept."

As Mohammad observed Lynch's captors, Iraqi paramilitary forces stormed his home in Nasiriya and seized many of his belongings, including his car. His wife and 6-year-old daughter fled to a neighbor's home.

"I am not worried for myself," he said. "Security in Iraq loyal to Saddam will kill my wife. They will kill my [child]."

Describing the scene at the hospital, Mohammad said Lynch was covered up to her chin by a white blanket, with her head bandaged and a serious wound on her right leg.

He said the doctors had planned to amputate her leg, but Mohammad and a friend, who had helped him get past the heavy security surrounding Lynch, created diversions to delay the surgery.

"She would have died if they tried it," Mohammad said.

For two days, he walked through battles in the streets of Nasiriya to get to the hospital. In addition to watching the guards' movements, each morning he attempted to keep Lynch's spirits strong with a "good morning" in English.

Mohammad said Lynch acted bravely throughout the ordeal.

When reporting back to the Marines on March 30, Mohammad brought five maps he and his wife had made. He was able to point to the room where Lynch was being held. He also handed over the security layout, reaction plan and times that shift changes occurred.

He had counted 41 Iraqi forces, and determined that a helicopter could land on the hospital's roof.

That information helped U.S. forces plan and carry out a successful nighttime raid April 1.

Mohammad praised the Marines and the U.S.-led war to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and said that he and his family hope to meet Lynch in the future. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/04/sprj.irq.pow.informer/index.html

Who would you believe, Dr Anmar Uday telling us of blanks or Mohammad who risked his family to help Lynch?
I'm disappointed to see the BBC article still up front and center. The decision which to believe is entirely yours....

p-)
He219

[Royal]

The programme in question was aired on BBC2. It was a diatribe against the 'spin' and control on the media (particularly at CENTCOM in Doha). Anyone who's had the missfortune of working with the press on Ops will know the hate/hate relationship between the media/armed forces in war zones.

The Pte Lynch part, was a minor part of the programme and included most of the info already raised on this thread (although I didn't notce the word blanks used in either language).

We all run PsyOps, it would seem to me that the rescue was a well taken opportunity to run a low risk raid against an undefended location and push it for the 'feel good' factor at home. No problems with that.

Duke (and others) the BBC may well spout crap on occasions (such as this), but mouthpiece of the government it certainly ain't.

[He219]

Royal, if you go to http://news.bbc.co.uk you will still see it there.

Referencing the dates of the USMC and press releases previously posted clearly idicates that it was not disinformation by the US Gvt.

It is a cheap plug for their 'War Spin' show. Out of context the article can be interpreted only one way. BULL. The BBC is one of my personal choices for news. For the BBC to plug Dr Anmar Uday's comments is rather disapointing...


"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

Dr Harith a-Houssona is not exactly credible either. Were they not the Doctors that were about to amputate Pfc. Lynch's leg?


He said the doctors had planned to amputate her leg, but Mohammad and a friend, who had helped him get past the heavy security surrounding Lynch, created diversions to delay the surgery.

The BBC Feature Article serves to discredit actual events surrounding the rescue of Army Pfc. Lynch.....



While the rescue was ongoing, other team members were led to a burial site containing bodies they thought might be American. "They ... did not have shovels in order to dig those graves up, so they dug them up with their hands," Renuart said. "They wanted to do that very rapidly so that they could race the sun and be off the site before the sun came up -- a great testament to the will and desire of coalition forces to bring their own home."

The team evacuated the bodies, and they were returned to the United States for forensic testing.

DoD identified eight of the bodies as American soldiers:
Sgt. George E. Buggs, 31, of Barnwell, S.C.;
Master Sgt. Robert J. Dowdy, 38, of Cleveland, Ohio;
Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto, 18, of El Paso, Texas;
Spc. James M. Kiehl, 22, of Comfort, Texas;
Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Villareal Mata, 35, of Amarillo, Texas;
Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz.;
Pvt. Brandon U. Sloan, 19, of Cleveland, Ohio; and
Sgt. Donald R. Walters, 33, of Kansas City, Mo.

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/ac95bc775efc34c685256ab50049d458/609bf1993feef1bc85256d01004a4481?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,Lynch

....and came up far short on the

'feel good' factor

[Cpl Stumps]

Pentagon calls BBC's Lynch allegations 'ridiculous'
Report said commando raid was unnecessarily theatric
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, May 19, 2003 Posted: 5:10 PM EDT (2110 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Any charge that the U.S. military misrepresented the facts of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch's rescue April 1 from an Iraqi hospital to make the mission appear more dramatic or heroic is "void of all facts and absolutely ridiculous" the Pentagon said Monday.

Responding to a BBC report that called the Pentagon accounts of the rescue "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I think that allegation is ridiculous, I don't know how else to respond. The idea that we would put a number of forces in danger unnecessarily to recover one of our POWs is just ridiculous."

The then-19-year-old Lynch and five fellow members of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company were taken prisoner March 23 outside Nasiriya, Iraq. (Story of other survivors)

A week later, acting on intelligence information, U.S. Special Forces led a team of Marines, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and airmen went into the hospital to rescue Lynch.

The BBC report quoted witnesses and hospital officials as stating the United States knew that there were no Iraqi forces at the hospital when it conducted the commando raid, and that the United States special operations forces had used Hollywood theatrics, including blank ammunition, to make on a show of rescuing private Lynch.

The Pentagon said no blanks were used, and all procedures employed were consistent with the "tactics, techniques and procedures" normally employed by U.S. forces when there is a perceived threat of encountering hostile forces.

"We don't want to take unnecessary risk. We do make sure that when we exercise military force we use the right resources, sufficient to get the job done. It is a decision made by the commander on the ground," Whitman told CNN.

"We were able to snatch her and without any loss of life."

Pentagon: Military never said rescuers took fire
The Pentagon spokesman also said the United States military never claimed the rescue force came under fire when it burst into the hospital, but it did say U.S. troops supporting the mission exchanged fire nearby.

"There was not a firefight inside of the building, I will tell you, but there were firefights outside of the building, getting in and getting out," Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations, said at an briefing in Doha, Qatar, on April 2.

John Kampener, the veteran BBC correspondent behind the documentary, said his reporting was based on interviews he conducted in Nasiriya after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Kampener also told CNN that he requested the Pentagon's raw footage of the rescue operation in an effort to verify the U.S. account. He said the Pentagon declined his request.

The BBC report also questioned the various accounts of Lynch's injuries.

At the April 2 briefing, the military did not release the nature of Lynch's injuries or say how she obtained them.

Whitman said speculative reports in the news media, not Pentagon ****ouncements, were responsible for some of the misinformation surrounding Lynch's story, including a Washington Post account that she had expended all of her ammunition before being captured.

"Certain facts about what happened to other soldiers got confused with what may have happened to Jessica," Whitman said.

'She never told us' what happened
The Pentagon never released an account of what happened to Lynch because it didn't have an account, Whitman said. "She never told us."

Lynch suffered a head laceration and spinal injury, and both her legs and her right arm and foot were broken during her ordeal in Iraq. According to authorities, she cannot recall details from the time she was ambushed in Iraq to a point during her captivity there.

Although Whitman acknowledged that in retrospect it might have been possible for the U.S. military to drive up to the hospital and take Lynch, he noted that that was not known at the time.

"If we had good knowledge we could drive in and take her out, we certainly would have done that rather than a joint operation. We don't look to do them in a more difficult, complex way," he said.

"It's not up to me to second guess, but I can't imagine we would have done anything differently."

[cut]

It is a cheap plug for their 'War Spin' show. Out of context the article can be interpreted only one way. BULL.


"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."

note that the bbc only quoted that doctor, which means it's not their opinion it's his. as for there dicision to put it in the article, freedom of speech akkowing the reader to make up there own mind.

as forthe BBC putting it in such a prominent place, if you had an article in which people expressed so much intressed wouldn't you keep it up.



Dr Harith a-Houssona is not exactly credible either. Were they not the Doctors that were about to amputate Pfc. Lynch's leg?
that is probably just as true as the dr's "blanks". The main point of this program was to show how much dissinformation there was. that article however is more about the lengths the DoD may have done or can go to to get a positive story in the press.



He said the doctors had planned to amputate her leg, but Mohammad and a friend, who had helped him get past the heavy security surrounding Lynch, created diversions to delay the surgery.


why is mohammad's version automaticlly more truthful than the doctors in your eyes?
(besides in the US who would you trust more to tell the truth a lawyer or doctor)?

and anyone saying that the doctor is a saddam doctor like in the responses to the article on the BBC site are wrong because the lawyer and the doctor would both have to have shown loyality to their local baath party at some time to keep their jons, or at least stay very low.

[He219]

Cut Wrote:
...about the lengths the DoD may have done or can go to to get a positive story in the press.
The 'Spin' show was about the BBC's interpretation of the 'lenghts the DoD MAY have gone' in the interpretation of the rescue of Pfc Lynch. The truth speaks for itself.

The facts were that an Iraqi sought out American troops and told them of the whereabouts of a female US POW. Fedayeen were known to be at the Hospital. Pfc. Lynch along with the exhumed bodies of Eight (8) US soldiers were recovered from shallow graves nearby.

With the retrieval of unidentified bodies returned to the United States for forensic testig and the rescue of the first female US POW - what should have been reported? What was the 'Spin', Cut?

Also, It is prudent to assume that an enemy would have a POW under guard. The lawyer was compelled to help Pfc. Lynch. I give him great latitude for that.

p-)
He219
hat should

[cut]

The spin was in the achivement. The show is not spin, where would the point be in that. Unless you have a different understanding of spin. It is prudent, to assume that a pow may be under guard, but to send in the whole lot guns blazing is a bit over the top. I'm not saying that's what they did, but having the navy seals, delta, rangers and marines (i might have missed people out) is a bit excessive. Delta are easily capable of getting a pow of of a hospital. I believe the marines were already in nasirya and would have been and the hospital a day later at the most. Now having the navy seals, delta & rangers the rangers storming a just hours earlier was not needed and quite frankly seems to have been for the benifit of the press. I'm sure the brave marines who were fighting and dying in nasirya would have liked to have the honour of "freeing" pvt Lynch. And I believe they deserved to have done it.

Reminds me of an incident in WWII when the general in command of american forces at anzio decided to march half his men into Rome leaving the other half to get decimated and being unable to stop the german army which was fleeing british, free french, indian colonial and ghurka forces after the battle of monte casino. Meaning american lives were lost needlessly so that this general (I can't remember his name) could have the american army enter Rome one day earlier.

[Duke]

I'm not saying that's what they did, but having the navy seals, delta, rangers and marines (i might have missed people out) is a bit excessive.

To my misinformed Cut,
I know you don't know how far a 308 can travel, nor a RPG, nor any number of Soviet-era mortars. Because if you did you, wouldn't ramble on about American military tactics like you just did.
About the rescue, within the immediate area of the hospital was an enemy force (The bad guys) these men have guns and explosives, which if you didn't know can KILL Americans. These same "bad guys" had the ability to crawl, walk, jog or drive to the nearby hospital. Now, with that threat potential in mind, how much fire power in your Clauswitz/Tsu razor-sharp intellect should S3 have employed. Tell me cut, in your trademark fashion, how many or better yet, use that ESP or psychic ability you have inferred to have, since you knew how many Iraqis would show up at the hospital.
Cut learn rule number one of warfare 1 + 1 = 2 or "the greater force will always overcome the lesser", and the greater force never takes ANYTHING for granted.


Now having the navy seals, delta & rangers the rangers storming a just hours earlier was not needed and quite frankly seems to have been for the benifit of the press.
More bull**** by Mister Cut.

[cut]

Say what you want about me it that's all you can do.

and if your army clichee is so important how could someone, with military knowledge as rudimentary has you have pointed out, know that moving american tank vs. three moving iraqi tanks would almost certainly disproove that. I'd also like you to tell me how many iraqi soldiers this large force came across in that hospital? Despite having knowledge of precisely where Pvt. Lynch was, intelligence was unable to say whether there were enemy forces and their (rough) numebrs?

[Duke]

That's my point cut. No one wanted to ASSUME anything about the size of the force, from a single Iraqi with a machete to a machine gun platoon. Thank God no Iraqi could muster to the hospital, since WE, Americans, deterred the Iraqis with a credible force.
About the enemy forces. Who was shooting back with tracers at the US forces? I know, the shooters were Media Officers (SOC) planted by S3 to create an appearance of a massive firefight.

[He219]

Cut Wrote:
Delta are easily capable of getting a pow of of a hospital


The team decided the intelligence was right, and special operators put the plan into motion. On April 1, U.S. Army Rangers, Special Forces and aviators; U.S. Navy SEALs; Air Force pilots and combat controllers; and U.S. Marine elements launched the mission.

Renuart said speed was essential to rescue Lynch and to "exploit some areas of the hospital where we had reports of enemy headquarters, command-and-control facilities and the like."

One unit of Marines created a diversion in Nasiriyah. Another element, using helicopters and ground transport, brought the special operations team to the hospital

Cut, we don't want another Blackhawk down incident. You use overwhealming force in a lightning raid to execute a mission. Each unit had their purpose. Marines to create the diversion, Rangers to hold the Perimeter. Special Forces to extract the prisoner(s). Imagine how quickly the initiative can be lost when a chopper goes down..

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/ac95bc775efc34c685256ab50049d458/111702c7bdd0c64185256d0b007c1cd2?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,Lynch

Nice twist on history, Cut.

It was General Mark Clark who was first in Rome. General Lucas was responsible for not breaking out of Anzio. Troops were pinned down for the entire winter. Monte Cassino was the pivot in the Gustav Line. Anzio was meant to circumvent it. Monte Cassino was a bloody mess and a brilliant tactical position for the German Paratroopers fighting in the ruins of the bombed Sixth Century Benedicine Monestary. Eventually the Gustav Line collapsed to the Gothic Line. Mark Clark eventually became Supreme UN Commander in Korea.

p-)
He219

[Royal]

Cut learn rule number one of warfare 1 + 1 = 2 or "the greater force will always overcome the lesser

Which would of course explain how the Zulus won Rourkes Drift, the Argentines won the Falklands and both the French and Americans won in Vietnam...

[cut]

Nice twist on history, Cut.

It was General Mark Clark who was first in Rome. General Lucas was responsible for not breaking out of Anzio. Troops were pinned down for the entire winter. Monte Cassino was the pivot in the Gustav Line. Anzio was meant to circumvent it. Monte Cassino was a bloody mess and a brilliant tactical position for the German Paratroopers fighting in the ruins of the bombed Sixth Century Benedicine Monestary. Eventually the Gustav Line collapsed to the Gothic Line. Mark Clark eventually became Supreme UN Commander in Korea.

p-)
He219
I'm not disagreeing with that aspect.
btw there were few germans in the monastery until after the allied bombings but there was no way of knowing that at the time.


The Germans retreated and the Americans drove eastward from Anzio. Clark had an opportunity to cut off and destroy the German forces retreating north, but he decided to head for Rome. Entering Rome on June 4, 1944, he had no way of knowing that the Allied landing in France two days later would knock the liberation of the ancient capital from the public eye.

similar kind of thing.

source (http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/italy43_45.htm)

[Duke]

Royal,
You ****-ing piss me off, I see you have no military education. Listen up! The exact quote by Napolean is, "The foundation of war and mathematics are the same, one plus one equals two or the greater force overcomes the lesser."
I see you don't understand this concept, so I'll explain it. The theory of war and math are based on the same principle. In math 1+1=2, and so in war (ceteris paribus) one warrior along with another will kill a sole warrior. All warfare is ground in this theory.
Of course, numerous factors such as, technology, morale, friction and the unknown skews this formula, but its the basis of warfare, and the guiding principle for all militaries.
So at the end of the battle, the greater force will overcome the lesser. The greater force doesn't necessarily have greater numbers or technology or morale or less friction, its actually a combination of these and many others that allow the success of the greater force.
Royal, what's your formula or basic model of warfare? Since you know more than Napolean and every other warrior. (Please post in reply) Might I suggest that before you again attempt to belittle me with paltry reasoning go do some homework.

[He219]

Cut:
Mark Clark was an extremely young General and I believe he could never have bested Field Marshall Kesslering's tactical withdrawl from Rome and the Gustav Line to the Gothic Line. The Paratroopers were low on ammunition and food after fighting who knows how long....

As for the German Paratroopers, none were positioned inside the Sixth Century Benadicting Monestary of Monte Cassino before General Bernard Freyberg asked for it to be bombed - due to ineffective infantry assaults. General Harold Alexander agreed and it was destroyed by the United States Air Force on 15th February, 1944.


Once the monastery had been bombed, the German Army moved into the ruins. As Basil Liddell Hart pointed out later in his book The Other Side of the Hill the bombing "turned out entirely to the tactical benefit of the Germans. For after that they felt free to occupy the ruins, and the rubble provided mud better defensive cover than the Monastery would have been before its destruction. As anyone with experience of street-fighting knows, it is only when buildings are demolished that they are converted from mousetraps into bastions of defence."

After the bombing the Germans were able to halt several attempts to capture Monte Cassino. It was not until troops led by General Wladyslaw Anders (Polish Corps) and General Alphonse Juin (French Corps) that the monastery was taken on 18th May, 1944.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmonte.htm

p-)
He219

[cut]

stop spelling benedictine wrong damn it! :P that word is very precious to me...

as for general clark, it may be true that he couldn't halt the retreat, but he did leave part of the forces he commanded to do exactly that, as he rode into Rome with the remainder of his forces.

[He219]

Cut:

Yeah, I got a bit Sloppy... That's Benedictine and Albert Kesselring.

Some Great information on Monte Cassino and on German Special Forces during WWII can be found at the Fallschirmjaeger wepsite:

http://www.forces70.freeserve.co.uk/Fallshirmjager/cassino.htm

p-)
He219

[cut]

wepsite? :P

thanks for the link http://muse.cust.poptel.org.uk/board/images/smilies/h.%20right_on.gif

[XASA]

Col. Hackworth has several sources within the military. Here's his take on the secrecy surrounding the Lynch rescue as well as an interesting assessment of U.S. vehicle losses in GWII.

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_052103.htm

[Royal]

Royal,
You f***-ing piss me off, I see you have no military education. Listen up! The exact quote by Napolean is, "The foundation of war and mathematics are the same, one plus one equals two or the greater force overcomes the lesser."

Of course, numerous factors such as, technology, morale, friction and the unknown skews this formula, but its the basis of warfare, and the guiding principle for all militaries.

So at the end of the battle, the greater force will overcome the lesser. The greater force doesn't necessarily have greater numbers or technology or morale or less friction, its actually a combination of these and many others that allow the success of the greater force.

If you can't take a joke, you shouln't have joined.

No I havn't heard of that quote before (either in it's full version, or the version you first used). I don't remember that theory being advanced in Staff College either. I agree that in theory it makes sense, particularly in its Napoleonic context, but it's hardly water-tight.

You say all warfare is ground in this theory. At a micro level I would generaly agree. Whether conducting insurgency, a raid, an assault or any other activity you attempt to gain superiority through firepower, surprise or whatever other factor. However at a macro level - I have to disagree, certainly in the type of warfare that I, as a commando have been trained for, and on occasion conducted. There are plenty of exmaples where a force superior in numbers, firepower, position and equipment have been defeated by an inferior force with a 'moral' superiority. Good Napoleonic exapmles from memory being Badajoz in 1812 or Vittoria in 1813. Or for more recent examples try Tumbledown or Harriet from 1982.

Again, I don't have a 'formula or basic model of warfare' - we are tought to use doctrine as a framework for planning and then (to use bloody management speak) to think 'outside the box'.

[Duke]

If you can't take a joke, you shouln't have joined.

Go to "The Wall" in DC and make that same joke. Furthermore, growing up on post and seeing Vietnam Vets with horrible disfigurements, I cringe when someone finds the Vietnam War "funny" or spouts unintelligent diatribe on the subject. Front, when I was a kid, I saw every saturday at the PX a Vietnam Vet with a face roasted to a wrinkly/scaly texture with no ears just a holes where ears should be and no hair on his head. In order to keep his sunglasses on, which I never saw him without, he taped his sunglasses just above the holes. How I felt sorry for that solider! But not to forget my own dad's horror stories, not just about the war in Vietnam, but the horrors he experience coming home to his own country.
And now, that I'm all grown up (some may disagree) and commissioned, I will ALWAYS defend those who served before me, specifically Vietnam Vets. In America, Front, the Vietnam Era is very painful and nothing to poke fun of.



However at a macro level - I have to disagree, certainly in the type of warfare that I, as a commando have been trained for, and on occasion conducted. There are plenty of examples where a force superior in numbers, firepower, position and equipment have been defeated by an inferior force with a 'moral' superiority. Good Napoleonic exapmles from memory being Badajoz in 1812 or Vittoria in 1813. Or for more recent examples try Tumbledown or Harriet from 1982.

Read my post, I included "morale".
At a strategic level, commanders regard armies or forces (Fleets etc) as a distinct units, so the stated warfare model is applicable. For example, Gen. Franks at his level and even his British subordinates regarded the 101st, the 3rd, British RM, British armoured (!) division, Marine's 3/4, 15th MEU, Marine 1st Div and SOFs engaging various Republican Guard Divisions as whole units, moved his pieces accordingly. What warfare model did they use? When entering the box, military thinking is based on the law of warfare, which includes the first maxim of two man kills one.

See Front I do have a funny bone.