Printable View
The BBC reflects the broad base of the people who pay for it so it would probably be left of centre compared to the US press. It does, however, have a written charter that mandates objectivity an independent ombudsman and because it has no advertising it is also immune to corporate conflict of interest.
Perhaps PNAC will tell us the unbiased truth... ;)
Here are a few takes published during the first week of April:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...nch_04-02.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...h-rescue_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/894499.asp?0cv=KB10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/T...s/20030402.htm
^^ appears to be a transcript of the first briefing the rescue was mentioned in, B. Gen. Vincent Brooks, source is Central Command ^^
From what I have seen, in a pretty wide variety of sources, mention of gunshot wounds to Pfc. Lynch did not come from Coalition military leadership, nor did it come from US White House or Pentagon officials. Pfc. Lynch's physical condition is pointedly not commented upon by all the briefing recollections/transcripts that I have read.
I did see one newspaper article in which Pfc. Lynch's parents told the media that she had gunshot wounds.
The aforementioned video footage of parts of the operation seems to have been taken by a military "combat camera team". An edited version of this footage was shown to the press on April 2, with what is described as "a coalition Blackhawk helicopter on the ground, and PFC Lynch on a stretcher, being carried to safety." The time of the briefing was not noted, but I think it's not unreasonable that it might have been 3:00 am local time (a great many briefings were given at a similar time in my recollection, so as to coincide with live coverage during the US daytime hours).
I don't see anything about combat inside the hospital, in fact all sources seem to indicate that coalition spokespersons said there was NO combat in the hospital. A variety of sources all share the same quote from B. Gen. Vincent Brooks saying, "There was not a firefight inside of the building, I will tell you, but there were fire fights outside of the building, getting in and getting out."
1) what was really "recording the rescue" you turn into "making a video".. its not MTV :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
I assume you're not questioning the bit about the making of the video but about the journalists being called in.
In the documentry it said that they were called in for the briefing in the middle of the night and that they were expecting to see somthing dramatic, er, more dramatic like Saddam being killed.
2) then you make it sound like the press was called out of their beds to see some tape which the media was probably drooling over (was that 3am US or Iraqi time by the way??? either or, i can bet you the press was not sleeping and called to work for this ):rolleyes:
3) what is wrong with the government/military for being proud of a successful rescue of a wounded soldier from enemy territory??? if they want to show what our soldiers will do for another, why shouldn't that be shown??
well it sure as hell shouldn't be torn down by the BSBC
I'm interested to see if anyone can produce conflicting documentation. So far as I've been able to research, it looks like a case of "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" translated to "The vodka is agreeable but the meat is spoiled".
Excellent research Slow_Learner. That is about what I have found as well.
Perhaps fired New York Times reporter Jayson Blair is now on his way to the BBC as we speak. Sounds like his journalistic style is more than welcome at that "news organization".
X
I found the BBC had very strange coverage of the news. When Gas Masks and chemical suits were found i didnt here anything from the BBC just from ITV news and online news. Same for any possible WMD sites.
They were also very good at focusing on the bomb going off in the market and talking in a very 'Hostile' way about the Americans as though they wouldnt beleive it wasnt the coalition until they had their heads shoved into an Iraqi missile case. I am not saying it wasnt coalition what i am saying is they were quite devious in slagging off anything the coalition did BEFORE the truth was known. I am certainly not so keen on the BBC news anymore!!!!! :) :) :) :)
The news papers pis*** me off too. They showed pictures that were not suitable for young children (Especially on the front page) i know war is war but young kids are not responsible and should not be forced to see these things whenever they go to buy there weekly magazine. Their constant we support the troops yay support us when they were actually doing f*** all!!!
I didnt like the Express coverage (My parents buy it) they had a front page image of two dead Iraqi soldiers with a white flag ON THE FRONT PAGE. In my opinion that is very irresponsible and to use these images to sell a news paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
1) what was really "recording the rescue" you turn into "making a video".. its not MTV :rolleyes:
recording the rescue/making a video it's the same thing. Hey played the footage they played the video take your pick
2) then you make it sound like the press was called out of their beds to see some tape which the media was probably drooling over (was that 3am US or Iraqi time by the way??? either or, i can bet you the press was not sleeping and called to work for this ):rolleyes:
I'm sure the press were drooling. My point was that earlier in the thread someone mentioned that the government did't make a big deal of the rescue.
I would consider calling a briefing in the middle of the night to show the "recording of the footage" a big deal. But later someone else mentioned that most briefings were at that time so maybe that was the norm.
3) what is wrong with the government/military for being proud of a successful rescue of a wounded soldier from enemy territory??? if they want to show what our soldiers will do for another, why shouldn't that be shown??
I never said is shouldn't, but the question remains as to what we were shown and what happened.
well it sure as hell shouldn't be torn down by the BSBC
Why not? shouldn't people try to find the truth?
the press is briefed constantly all the time while in Iraq... the fact that those soldiers had gone missing after making a wrong turn (and the fact that they were a support team to the military unit they were with) got a lot of news attention before they were found.. and they were believed to be dead... so they found them... and gave the update.. it was a big deal that they found them... its a big deal when any of our soldiers is rescued if you ask me.. its not like it was the first time we heard about Lynch or the other captives... they had beed talking about them for weeks...
I hate to break it to you.. but our military records just about everything... that way if something is to happen.. it is much easier to figure out what exactly happened... they record every bomb they drop, the raids they conducts, etc... I dont think there was a director there yelling "action" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
ACTION
BANG!!!!
F*** THERE GOES THE CAST!!!!!!!!
GOD DAM IT!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D
Good idea to pay the cast after filming. (must collect in person)Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
ACTION
BANG!!!!
F*** THERE GOES THE CAST!!!!!!!!
GOD DAM IT!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D
Good idea to pay by check then they wont even get it if the director dies :D :D :D :D
Tut tut, name calling once again :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
3) what is wrong with the government/military for being proud of a successful rescue of a wounded soldier from enemy territory??? if they want to show what our soldiers will do for another, why shouldn't that be shown??
Nothing wrong if you want to celebrate your victories, but you should also make sure they are real war victories, not staged.
.
There's absolutely no proof so far that there were WMDs in Iraq. No WMDs have been found, no shred of evidence to suggest they were even destroyed a few days before war started as is being claimed nowadays. As for the remaining issues you are talking about, if the US military killed civilians, that's the truth, and I don't think the BBC is wrong in showing what the truth is.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
I found the BBC had very strange coverage of the news. When Gas Masks and chemical suits were found i didnt here anything from the BBC just from ITV news and online news. Same for any possible WMD sites.
.
I didnt say they did or do have WMD's what is said was when there was a chance of WMD's the BBC looked away from it.
Oh and i said Chemical suits which WERE found!!!!!!
Civilians were likely to die in this conflict nobody could deny that but then IF saddam was going to do something rash then i dont think he would give a FU** about civilians.
Hell he has already killed thousands of his own people who were civilians!!!!!!
In my opinion civilians were given warnings to remain away from main targets before the attacks even came so its their fault if they were there when the bombs would innevitably hit. I know i would have stayed away!!!! :( :( :( :(
Saying that i do feel sorry for all the civilians that have suffered because they didnt ask for this in anyway, Saddam was a dictator
Before you mention the market incedent lets wait for the inquiry to finish before throwing the blame. Either way neither side intended it to happen (I dont think :eek: :eek: )
//Nothing wrong if you want to celebrate your victories, but you should also make sure they are real war victories, not staged.
It just floors me that anyone could take that story about the blanks seriously, while Coalition troops fired into crowds of civilian protestors. Do you believe everything you read or just the stuff that goes along with your anti-American agenda?
//There's absolutely no proof so far that there were WMDs in Iraq. No WMDs have been found, no shred of evidence to suggest they were even destroyed a few days before war started as is being claimed nowadays.
Hans Blix sure convinced me they had a bunch of WMD (read his report). ^_^
Slow_Learner don't waste your breath..
if its about the US and negative honeybee believes it regardless of what it might be
Yeah small things like facts and the truth don’t seem to matter to Honeybee :DQuote:
Originally posted by kleinma
Slow_Learner don't waste your breath..
if its about the US and negative honeybee believes it regardless of what it might be
Don't get aggravated just sit back and laugh and watch the show every time he posts. He always makes me chuckle because just when I think the ignorance and the hypocrisy cant get any worse it usually does :)
If you wanna see him back peddle and fall all over himself just bring up India and Kashmir. Then you can see the true depths of his hypocrisy in his criticism of the US.
X
Feh. I especially can't see how an Indian can be in any way supportive of terrorism or those that advocate it, when India's revolt against the British is the very best example of passive resistance.
I haven't been in here for a while...
Have any of you thought about the fact that there is ONE story about this being a hoax from ONE person.
Now, we have at least 20-50+ people that are involved in a mission. One of those people will start to feel guilty after a while, and tell the truth (assuming they were creating a hoax).
So, if none of those people come forward saying it was a hoax, then I will take it as a actual mission, no hollywood **** going on. I have seen plenty of mission videos, and I don't doubt it one bit that what we saw was a real mission.
I would like to hear the "truth" and the "facts" about the WMDs in Iraq and how it posed an immediate danger to the US and why it was necessary to destroy the whole country :D Gimme a holler when you find the "truth" and the "facts" apart from that there're no WMDs to be found, and there's a strong chance they never were there in the first place.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah small things like facts and the truth don’t seem to matter to Honeybee :D
Or I would also like to hear the "facts" and the "truth" about why places like the Iraqi national museum were not protected and left for looters and others to systematically destroy, while the US forces (oops, the "coalition" forces I mean ;) ) had secured and were guarding the oil wells even before the first bomb in the war was dropped.
Going by what your government is saying and what members like you are talking about, I think "truth" and "facts" can only mean something pouring out of a US Whitehouse spokesman :rolleyes:
.
//Gimme a holler when you find the "truth" and the "facts" apart from that there're no WMDs to be found, and there's a strong chance they never were there in the first place.
Go read the UN inspection team's report, it pretty strongly disagress with you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2700211.stm
//Or I would also like to hear the "facts" and the "truth" about why places like the Iraqi national museum were not protected and left for looters and others to systematically destroy...
Well, note the looters' and others' nationality (Iraqi)... Their behavior was shameful, really the ones to blame are THE LOOTERS.
Look at what your complaining about here...honestly look at it. The museum is not a 'military' objective, it never was, and never will be. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. If the US knew that the looting was going to take place, they may have included it into their plans. They KNEW that the oil fields were wired with explosives and had intellegence suggesting that those were going to be blown up within the first 48 hours of the war. You can't deny that not having tons of oil on fire and spirting all over the ground is better than having a museum looted....can you?Quote:
Or I would also like to hear the "facts" and the "truth" about why places like the Iraqi national museum were not protected and left for looters and others to systematically destroy, while the US forces (oops, the "coalition" forces I mean ) had secured and were guarding the oil wells even before the first bomb in the war was dropped.
Plus, if this is even an argument, then you are reaching for things to complain about. So what if the museum was looted. In the grand scheme of things, what does it really matter? Art is stolen all over the world every day, it doesn't affect you as a person does it? These people need water, food, economy, reconstruction, and a new government, the last thing these people are complaining about is the museum!
My thoughts, and they are copyrighted :)
Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
...Or I would also like to hear the "facts" and the "truth" about why places like the Iraqi national museum were not protected and left for looters and others to systematically destroy, while the US forces (oops, the "coalition" forces I mean ;) ) had secured and were guarding the oil wells even before the first bomb in the war was dropped....
I've heard several reports like this, and in one such, it was stated that the Iraqi Museum had taken steps before the war to secure most of its treasures away into vaults and/or removing them off the site altogether.Quote:
from http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...55E401,00.html "Initially we were told that almost half of the items had been stolen, that would be between 60,000 to 70,000 items, but it now seems like less than 1000 are missing and important items have been saved," Matsuura said in Lisbon.
So, it seems that the Iraqi Museum itself went about and provided its own protection, apparently leaving behind only those items it didn't consider worthy of protection.
Therefore, even if the Military were to have protected the Museum, it would have been a worthless and dangerous division of its forces, just to "Protect" a bunch of worthless items.
Certainly, also, if this waste of effort had happened, what would you be whining and complaining about by now? More than likely thru such a protection, hundreds of civilians would have been shot at, mowed down, killed, as they attempted to loot, By the Military, and you'd be stewing over the barbarous actions taken by the military! You'd be saying "Why did the Coalition Military MURDER those civilians!!! They Weren't asked to protect the Museum! There they go again, butting their noses into a situation that they should have stayed out of!" yada yada yada
-Lou
This was all over done, the doctors were trying to get her out and was treating her fine... until of course the US Army armed with a camcorder decided they fancied killing more people... thats all they do, fire guns, sorry guys thats not all to what being a soilder is, sole responsibility is saving lives not taking them.
Damn! Are you sure?Quote:
Originally posted by chenko2
...sole responsibility is saving lives not taking them.
Now I'm confused.
Did I pull 4 years in the Military, or the Ministry?
:confused:
;)
Wha? :confused:Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Damn! Are you sure?
Now I'm confused.
Did I pull 4 years in the Military, or the Ministry?
:confused:
;)
You guys should write story lines for video games, with that good imagination you have.
Your opinion in this matter is wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to begin but I am going to give it a shot.Quote:
Originally posted by chenko2
This was all over done, the doctors were trying to get her out and was treating her fine... until of course the US Army armed with a camcorder decided they fancied killing more people... thats all they do, fire guns, sorry guys thats not all to what being a soilder is, sole responsibility is saving lives not taking them.
First off saying it was “all over done” you obviously don’t recall that at this time there was a war going on and people were dying. The Iraqi’s had already employed tactics such as raising surrender flags only to fire and kill coalition forces, not to mention firing from mosques and hospitals, using non-uniformed troops, and using human shields.
Regardless if it all turned out after the fact that there were no Iraqi soldiers in the hospital the US military took into account all possibilities that this might be a trap or a lure for US forces and took the necessary force and the necessary precautions to insure the success of the mission.
Missions like this are often recorded by the military to determine what went wrong and what went right in a post mission analysis. It’s not unusual for such a mission to be taped by the military for review purposes. And the mission was about rescuing one of their own from the enemy not because “they fancied killing more people” as you put it. I honestly think you were being a tad melodramatic in your depiction of what the purpose of this particular mission was.
I just can’t buy into your theory of what a solider is either. You think a soldier’s “sole responsibility is saving lives not taking them”? Sorry to break this news to you but soldier’s are trained to kill not to go around stopping buglers or pulling kittens from trees. Soldiers have been trained to win by killing their enemy in various ways since the beginning of civilization itself. Saying a soldier’s sole responsibly is to save lives is just uninformed or just plain naive.
X
Xanith, read the book "On Killing", you might find it interesting. Most soldiers, historically, even if they were in combat, do not kill. Not that that has anything to do with your argument, I just think it's an interesting point when we talk about "killer soldiers".
Why is this thread still alive? We don't know what happened, and we may never find out. The rescue was valuable on many levels. To expect that only one level was the "true" level is simplistic. Some people wanted a rescue, some wanted a fight, some wanted good publicity for the army, some wanted personal gain. All these desires came together to produce what happened. The result is the sum of the parts, and would have been different had their been different parts. I think it's absurd to look at one of those parts and say "this, and only this, is the truth."
That would make you a conservative:D
We don't know the whole story, so we don't know all the truths.
It’s a simple point really don’t know how you can’t understand it. You don’t learn how to bake cookies in basic training. You are trained to use the weapons of war and to be in top physical condition as to make you a more efficient killing machine. You are trained to survive harsh conditions so you can kill more of the enemy than they can kill of your guys. Regardless of the personal feelings of soldiers and whether they actually decide to take human life when under combat the point is they are trained to kill.Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Xanith, read the book "On Killing", you might find it interesting. Most soldiers, historically, even if they were in combat, do not kill. Not that that has anything to do with your argument, I just think it's an interesting point when we talk about "killer soldiers".
I also highly doubt the assertion of most soldiers not killing when in combat. Objectives could never be taken and coordination of ground assaults could never be successful. While it might be true that “some” or “few” soldiers do not kill when faced with combat I think any well trained soldier’s instincts and training would kick in and even if they forget their training the natural human instinct is to survive, most people will kill to keep themselves alive if their life is threatened. I have never heard the theory that most soldiers don’t kill when in combat and goes against everything I’ve read, the documentaries I’ve seen, and the veterans I’ve talked too. But this wasn’t my point anyway.
First off I was only discounting obvious nonsense when it is totally inconsistent with the facts that are known. While you are correct in saying that the whole truth may never been known we can however dismiss those “theories” that are obviously flawed in the face of known facts. While you might tend to believe in some conspiracy theory or only look at evidence that supports your own little theory, and the assertion that the US government is always is the wrong, I like to look at all the evidence.Quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Why is this thread still alive? We don't know what happened, and we may never find out. The rescue was valuable on many levels. To expect that only one level was the "true" level is simplistic. Some people wanted a rescue, some wanted a fight, some wanted good publicity for the army, some wanted personal gain. All these desires came together to produce what happened. The result is the sum of the parts, and would have been different had their been different parts. I think it's absurd to look at one of those parts and say "this, and only this, is the truth."
That would make you a conservative:D
We don't know the whole story, so we don't know all the truths.
That would make you a liberal. :D
X
as long as nobody is labour we are safe ;) ;) ;)
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Xanith, I suggested the book because I agreed with what you said. The book, written by an American special forces officer, shows the results of several studies (as well as some anecdotes, so that conservatives can understand it, too) by both the US and British army, that demonstrate that most soldiers won't kill, regardless of the training. It goes on to explain how modern military training since the Viet Nam war was focused on overcoming this reluctance. Believing as you do, and as I did, you would find the book interesting, and probably compelling.
But just to make another point. I hope I don't offend you too much, but you have made it abundantly clear that you, too, only look at the evidence that supports your theories. However, I would not consider you a liberal.
In todays wars most of the action takes place in the sky. The civilian casualties in Iraq were mostly due to the aerial bombardment that preceded the invasion. The Coalition Forces lost about 243 troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom and approximately 50+ troops since the end of "hostilities".