US POW rescue was 'stage-managed'
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, MAY 17, 2003 09:29:19 PM ]

NEW DELHI: The dramatic rescue of US soldier Jessica Lynch on April 2 from an Iraqi hospital made headlines everywhere, including in this newspaper.
 
The whole world saw dramatic footage - conveniently filmed by US Army night vision cameras - of helicopter-borne American special forces kicking down doors and firing their guns, apparently at Iraqi soldiers.
 
The rescue of the young POW boosted morale on the US home front at a time when the invasion of Iraq had appeared to run aground. "It was a classic operation done by some of our nation's finest warriors, who are dedicated to never leaving a comrade behind", US brigadier general Vincent Brooks declared. And the entire media breathlessly retailed this story.
 
There was only one problem: the story simply wasn't true. The dramatic rescue was a well-prepared 'infowar' operation staged for the cameras. The purpose being to shift media focus away from the killing of civilians by the US bombardment of Iraq and on to the 'heroism' of US forces.
 
Interviews conducted by the Toronto Star and BBC at the hospital in Nasiriya where Lynch was being treated have revealed the following facts about the entire affair:
 
All Iraqi troops and fidayeen had withdrawn from the area two days before the 'daring' rescue.
 
The hospital staff had driven Lynch to a US checkpost in an ambulance a day earlier in an attempt to hand her over but were fired upon.
 
US soldiers involved in the rescue fired blanks to create the impression that they had to fight their way in.
 
"It was like a Hollywood film", Dr Ammar Uday told the BBC, "They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and blanks without bullets and the sound of explosions. They made a show...".
 
"The most important thing to know", Dr Harith Houssona told the Toronto Star, "is that Iraqi soldiers and commanders had left the hospital almost two days earlier".
 
He said that the night they left, his colleagues moved Jessica Lynch out of intensive care and into an ambulance. "We began to drive to the Americans, who were just 1 km away. But when the ambulance got within 300 metres, they began to shoot".
 
The BBC, whose documentary on the stage-managed 'rescue' will be telecast on Sunday, said the Pentagon "had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer," whose advice "was taken on and developed on the field of battle in Iraq".

© Bennett, Coleman and Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.

Really now. I just can't believe the Government would lie to me. And I believe in, Santa, The Easter Bunny, and ...

Play it again Sam.

You don't think ANYTHING can possibly happen in this world without some crooked nefarious Bushist subplot do you?

What sheep!

I suppose you think the world series is not some COINTELPRO black op too.
What trolls!

And so is Rush! BAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

...at the sheer quantity of willful ignorance displayed by Bush Junta Apologists and their slack jawed minions.

It seems to be approaching Infinity as a Limit.

>There was only one problem: the story simply wasn't true. The dramatic rescue was a well-prepared 'infowar' operation staged for the cameras. The purpose being to shift media focus away from the killing of civilians by the US bombardment of Iraq and on to the 'heroism' of US forces.

...at the sheer quantity of willful ignorance of anyone who would believe the above statement. But it doesn't bother me. It shouldn't you either. Just use them to your advantage. Like P.T. Barnum says, you can make money off these people.

And we can make money off people like YOU.

...contending that they really did go in against massive opposition from the Rabid Elite Deadly Killing Machines of the Iraqi Fedayeen? ROFL!

P.T. Barnum popularized a term for people who credulously believe every huckster in a suit, like umm Duhbya, he called them SUCKERS.

Don't put words in my mouth. It's rude. it's impolite. it's in bad form. This article says the whole thing was staged. There's no substantive evidence to prove that to be true.

>P.T. Barnum popularized a term for people who credulously believe every huckster in a suit, he called them SUCKERS.

I already made the statement regarding PT Barnum in my first post, and yes, I make money off people like you and especially people like the "FOX NEWS" poster everyday.

Thanks for being one of our cahs cows, you oblivious moron.

Oblivious moron!?! This assclown just called me a liberal. No other group could possibly wear the name oblivious moron.

Cool! So if I become a conservative, I can change the definitions of words? Great! It must rule not to have to think on your own. I think I'll become a conservative.

...accomplishments was a Pederast and a fan of the Sophists.

No matter how things change they remain the same.

There will always be that element who cling to the soothing pronouncements of those in "authority" regardless of contradictions. It is a form of cowardice.

"The truth is cruel but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it."
George Santayana

No. If you become a conservative, you CAN'T change the meaning of words. That's why oblivious moron=liberal, and if you were a liberal "oblivious moron" would mean something it really doesn't.

Being a conservative is so convenient. I can change the definitions of words.

>There will always be that element who cling to the soothing pronouncements of those in "authority" regardless of contradictions. It is a form of cowardice.

How can it be a form of cowardice if one does their own research and finds that their conclusion is the same as they are being told by those in "authority", that there are no contradictions? You have made it out to be that the only conclusion one can reach upon independent research is one that contradicts the "official version". That is not logical.

"You have made it out to be that the only conclusion one can reach upon independent research is one that contradicts the "official version"."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

I've done my own independent research and have found that the "official version" to be true. Are you able to accept that an individual could view the same evidence as you and reach a different conclusion?

"I've done my own independent research and have found that the "official version" to be true."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

If two statements are mutually contradictory the one thing we can immediately know is that "one, or both, are false".

We have:

The event was stage managed and face no opposition.

The event was a heroic rescue in the face of powerful opposition.

Both cannot be true at the same time.

Outpoint: Soldiers in Combat don't fire blanks.

Outpoint: The Doctors on the scene gave eyewitness testimony that the guards had left 2 days before. (By the way there are multiple accounts to back this up if you take the time to actually look.)

There are more outpoints but these will suffice.

I take back my earlier comment. Calling you a buffoon is too charitable.

dc thang got under olefakers skin

hehehehehe

"dc thang got under olefakers skin"

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

The non-sensical main topic not withstanding, the interesting development in this thread is how absoluetely little you seem to gasp logic and it;s fallacies. Evidently you are very attached to this "unsubstantiated allegation" charge which you incorrectly use whenever someone posts a view, opinion or belief of fact which is contrary to yours.
You would do well to actually STUDY debate and or logic skills before commenting on them.

And Dio, Nice axiom except for the fact that it hinges on allegations which are as of yet unverifiable. Try again.

"The non-sensical main topic not withstanding, the interesting development in this thread is how absoluetely little you seem to gasp logic and it;s fallacies. Evidently you are very attached to this "unsubstantiated allegation" charge which you incorrectly use whenever someone posts a view, opinion or belief of fact which is contrary to yours."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

What I read and saw were heros who went into a hostile area and rescued a fellow militaryman who had been captured. I found no evidence it was "staged". If you can't handle that, it's not my problem.

We just love dupes like you.

... a proof of your contention in Symbolic Logic.

I make no claims unsupported. The public record is clear. While you won't do it because it is not in your brief, and your superiors wouldn't like it, take a few minutes to hunt down some of the interviews done with hospital personnel. The interviews exist.

It is interesting to note also that PVT. Lynch has suddently developed a case of Amnesian and cannot remember anything about her time in the hospital. How convenient.

First of all, I'm not fresca.

>I make no claims unsupported.

I see a lot of "claims" on here that are claimed to be supported. I don't consider commondreams or rense or any of those types of sources to be legit.

Like I said, they went in, they rescued her, and they left. I'm glad they got her, aren't you? I find nothing worth considering that suggests it was staged. What the doctors were or were not confident of regarding whether or not there was still resistence when at the hospital they went in doesn't concern me. I'm confident the soldiers took the doctors word regarding the safety of entering the hospital area with a big grain of salt, locked, and loaded. What she does or doesn't remember is not my concern. She's one of ours. I'm just glad she's alive.

We just love dupes like you. Would you like some IDF-issue menstrual pads signed by Ariel Sharon?

"... a proof of your contention in Symbolic Logic. "

Your use of an opinion as fact.

A doctor claims the soldiers were shooting blanks.

That's it?

All of a sudden you take that as gospel.

This is not proof of anything.

Furthermore, one article quoting a source is not even proof that there even is a doctor.

Christ Dio, you're smart enough, if not willing enough, to believe something so completely that has such little evidence.

My point is this. For all I know the article may be completely true. I wasn't there. But so far all we have is evidence to the contrary. I find it very predictable that you have found a way to buy this story without question upon first reading.

I'm adding this to the growing list of "Conspiracy Theories which May Or May Not Be Coreect But Which Dio Buys Completely And Without Question".

The list is getting quite long.

"But so far all we have is evidence to the contrary."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

... I'm in the playbook with you - all I want is people to think for themselves.

As for frescaw - as always making false grand generalizations: "I'm adding this to the growing list of "Conspiracy Theories which May Or May Not Be Coreect But Which Dio Buys Completely And Without Question"."

This is the tactic of someone with nothing to back up their screed. frescaw as always engages in lies, distortions, character assassination and gimmicks.

How totally brain dead and ethically bankrupt.

So, what did happen at the great escape? Tell us frescaw? Let me guess: It unfolded exactly as the PsyOps and MoPic people put out right? Yeah, right.

ROFL!

"So, what did happen at the great escape? Tell us frescaw? Let me guess: It unfolded exactly as the PsyOps and MoPic people put out right?"

Couldn't tell ya. But one things for sure. I bought the original story about as quickly as I bought this one. I'm not in any rush, unlike yourself, to take either one of them as gospel.

And that list is real. No grand statement. Simply an account of your compulsion to accept any conspiracy theory that comes your way regardless of substantiation.

What's the big deal? You're not honestly trying to claim that you DON'T do that are you? The database here is overflowing with example after example of proof of it.

If you mean do I view the Official Spin on some story dubious? Why you betcha'. Guilty as charged and proud of it.

Do I think that some people in high places commit foul deeds for their own aggrandizement? Why you betcha'. Guilty as charged and proud of it.

Always question. Decide for yourself. What do the facts say not what is the "Official Story". There are hundreds to thousands of examples of governments lying. I am always skeptical of official pronouncements.

Hey frescaw wanna buy a Bridge? It's a real money maker kid. I'll make you a great deal.

ROFL!

"Always question. "

Perfect.

Well put.

Except for the fact that you NEVER question anything. You simply beleive.

"Except for the fact that you NEVER question anything. You simply beleive."

Unsubstantiated Allegation

For more about logic, see:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm

""Except for the fact that you NEVER question anything. You simply beleive."

Unsubstantiated Allegation "

Dio, use a different IP when posting as debate coach.

The allegation is completely sunstantiated over and over again. Search the database.

"debate coach" and Diogenes' IP addresses are different. You are quite amusing. Please continue to make a fool out of yourself. You conservatives are very good at it.

Dio and Debate coach both share the following

216.248.76.24

you show the following:

216.97.77.82

What's mine?

I AM "debate coach," you IT genius, you. I love it when you dig your own hole. Are there any more IP addresses that you want to make-up?

"I AM "debate coach," you IT genius, you."

prove it.

and please tell me my address.

wow
dynamic server?
wow.