Eliat, Israel

In article ,
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
She never fired a single shot, she stood her assigned station bravely as
her sergeant indicated on ABC TV.

So I really don't get this whole thing (didn't see the movie and haven't
read that much about her story, so my bits'n'pieces understanding may be
off):

She is in a vehicle that gets hit. She is injured. She is taken to a
local hospital where she is treated well. The army then overreacts and
invades the hospital, who freely turn her over, and then she comes back home
to the USA.

The hospital is a military HQ and depot. The only reason it is absent
of combatants was due to a strong diversion that was created exactly for
that purpose.


Where's the legitimate drama here? What makes her more of a hero than anyone
else who gets hospitalized and then released? Why a movie if not for
domestic propaganda purposes?


It has been more than 50 years since a POW was rescued by the U.S...

jay
Thu, Nov 13, 2003




miguel

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Go Fig wrote:


like this. Her vehicle ran into another truck after being struck with an RPG,
and
her injuries were apparently consistent with that. Moreover, the doctor said
that
they unzipped her pants and that buttons were in place, which would be
inconsistent with a sexual assault.

How much can an unconscious person resist to cause broken buttons, torn
clothes and defensive wounds ?

I guess that you are suggesting that someone who would be callous enough to rape
and sodomize an unconscious women with serious injuries would take the time to
carefully undo all her buttons, remove her clothing and then replace everything and
do up her zipper and button, and that all this would be done at the scene of a
recent battle with a chance of the enemy returning. It makes no sense at all.

What you have shown in your excellent
attributions is that no rape kit was taken, my only assumption.

Of course no rape kit was used, and I gather that you have little or no
understanding of what a rape kit is or the reason for it. Since you appear to
prefer to play silly, I will try to explain it to you. First of all it is not some
sort of test to see if someone has been raped. It is a set of medical instruments
and equipment to collect DNA samples. Those would include semen samples, the
victim's hair and pubic hair, finger nails , and all of the victim's clothing. They
are used for the prosecution of rapists. If there had been any indication of a
sexual assault, I am sure that the doctor would have checked it out. But as was
pointed out to you, there was no reason for the doctor to have carried out any suck
collections because there had not been any reason to suspect a rape. Even if he
did, it was a war zone, and chances of a rape trial would in those conditions are
slim.

I have to wonder what sort of rape kit the US army used when they examine Lynch 9
days later. Maybe you can do some research and see what use a rape kit would be
after that period of time and after she had been exposed to so many different
people.

I leave this subject with this; try and see the ABC interview, all
parties speak in english except the singing nurse. These interviews
were as a result of a specific paragraph in PFC Lynch's own book
concerning rape. There is a unnatural hesitation in her voice when
specifically asked about it; she, of course, has access to her official
U.S. medical report.

In an interview, she denied that she had been raped. So I guess we are facing a
claim that there was a rape based on medical reports from examinations at least 9
days after the alleged assault. I have to wonder how the author got access to
Lynch's army medical records. Maybe the huge sum paid for the book have something
to do with the story being spiced up a bit.



If she had done what they had originally done when the reports first came out
she
would be something of a hero.

This report (s) is 1 report, and it was that article that was picked up
world wide. It names only some "official." This aspect was covered on
ABC TV this week, during the first ever interview with Lynch. There was
never an official release from the U.S. Military that touted her heroic
fighting.

It's interesting how the army brass is backing off on the stuff that was fed to the
media. Bear in mind that she was awarded a Bronze Star, and award that is supposed
to be awarded "For heroic or meritorious achievement of service, not involving
aerial flight in connection with operations against an opposing armed force." I am
having trouble figuring out where being hurt in an attack, passing out and then
waking up hours later in a hospital fits into that one.



As it turned out, she did no such thing. She
did
not fire until she ran out of ammunition.

She never fired a single shot, she stood her assigned station bravely as
her sergeant indicated on ABC TV.

Her sergeant? Where was he? The news reports indicated that everyone else in the
unit had been killed. She never stood anywhere. She was out cold and carried off on
a stretcher.



up with abuse in the hospital. It turned out that she was well treated by the
medical staff.

Has there been ANY other reports to the contrary ?

Yes. I cited them earlier, even cut and pasted the quote to make it exceptionally
easy for you. You managed to miss it. The lawyer who made the claims about his
witnessing her abuse made a lot of money on the deal.



PFC Lynch's only reservation/resentment is that her rescue was filmed.
That was indeed marketed, but it was quite a unique success.

Well jeepers. Doesn't that tell you something right there. They go in on a special
mission to "rescue" a POW (read "patient") and send a crew along to videotape the
adventure.

I am beginning to realize how right P T Barnum was. There is one born every minute.

Go Fig wrote:


She is in a vehicle that gets hit. She is injured. She is taken to a
local hospital where she is treated well. The army then overreacts and
invades the hospital, who freely turn her over, and then she comes back home
to the USA.

The hospital is a military HQ and depot. The only reason it is absent
of combatants was due to a strong diversion that was created exactly for
that purpose.

LOL, Given that the event was staged and that just about everything else that was
reported about it has turned out to be false...... Yeah, I am sure that all the
Iraqi soldiers left their posts to deal with a diversion. They had already pulled
out of the area, and that's why the someone went ot the Americans to tell them
where she was.


Where's the legitimate drama here? What makes her more of a hero than anyone
else who gets hospitalized and then released? Why a movie if not for
domestic propaganda purposes?

It has been more than 50 years since a POW was rescued by the U.S...

And the first time ever that one has been staged, complete with videotaped
coverage. Some people actually believed it.

Go Fig wrote:
It has been more than 50 years since a POW was rescued by the U.S...

What about that Scott O'Grady feller?

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

In article ,
Dave Smith wrote:

Go Fig wrote:


like this. Her vehicle ran into another truck after being struck with an
RPG,
and
her injuries were apparently consistent with that. Moreover, the doctor
said
that
they unzipped her pants and that buttons were in place, which would be
inconsistent with a sexual assault.

How much can an unconscious person resist to cause broken buttons, torn
clothes and defensive wounds ?

I guess that you are suggesting that someone who would be callous enough to
rape
and sodomize an unconscious women with serious injuries would take the time
to
carefully undo all her buttons, remove her clothing and then replace
everything and
do up her zipper and button, and that all this would be done at the scene of
a
recent battle with a chance of the enemy returning. It makes no sense at
all.

There would be very serious consequences if they were caught, thugs
routinely cover their tracks.

Why do you think that only her other possessions were found in an
abandoned shack nearby the crash site and no possessions of her other
group members ?


What you have shown in your excellent
attributions is that no rape kit was taken, my only assumption.

Of course no rape kit was used, and I gather that you have little or no
understanding of what a rape kit is or the reason for it. Since you appear
to
prefer to play silly, I will try to explain it to you. First of all it is not
some
sort of test to see if someone has been raped. It is a set of medical
instruments
and equipment to collect DNA samples. Those would include semen samples, the
victim's hair and pubic hair, finger nails , and all of the victim's
clothing. They
are used for the prosecution of rapists. If there had been any indication of
a
sexual assault, I am sure that the doctor would have checked it out. But as
was
pointed out to you, there was no reason for the doctor to have carried out
any suck
collections because there had not been any reason to suspect a rape.

So is your threshold of rape unzipped pants and missing buttons ?
Perhaps you should look at the papers concerning date rape and one very
rich heir who use to live in Santa Barbara.... women as much as a year
later they were informed they had been filmed while being raped, they
were unconscious.


Even if
he
did, it was a war zone, and chances of a rape trial would in those conditions
are
slim.

I have to wonder what sort of rape kit the US army used when they examine
Lynch 9
days later. Maybe you can do some research and see what use a rape kit would
be
after that period of time and after she had been exposed to so many different
people.

In terms of positive ID that might be difficult due to contamination.
That is if they don't have a semen sample. But a unique ID is not the
point of this discussion.


I leave this subject with this; try and see the ABC interview, all
parties speak in english except the singing nurse. These interviews
were as a result of a specific paragraph in PFC Lynch's own book
concerning rape. There is a unnatural hesitation in her voice when
specifically asked about it; she, of course, has access to her official
U.S. medical report.

In an interview, she denied that she had been raped.

Not in the 2 that I have seen, and the only 2 she has given. She says
she does not know what happened after the crash and before the hospital.
She further said she doesn't want to know.


So I guess we are facing
a
claim that there was a rape based on medical reports from examinations at
least 9
days after the alleged assault. I have to wonder how the author got access to
Lynch's army medical records. Maybe the huge sum paid for the book have
something
to do with the story being spiced up a bit.



If she had done what they had originally done when the reports first came
out
she
would be something of a hero.

This report (s) is 1 report, and it was that article that was picked up
world wide. It names only some "official." This aspect was covered on
ABC TV this week, during the first ever interview with Lynch. There was
never an official release from the U.S. Military that touted her heroic
fighting.

It's interesting how the army brass is backing off on the stuff that was fed
to the
media. Bear in mind that she was awarded a Bronze Star, and award that is
supposed
to be awarded "For heroic or meritorious achievement of service, not
involving
aerial flight in connection with operations against an opposing armed force."
I am
having trouble figuring out where being hurt in an attack, passing out and
then
waking up hours later in a hospital fits into that one.

It was a very intense fight for over an hour from a logistics group.




As it turned out, she did no such thing. She
did
not fire until she ran out of ammunition.

She never fired a single shot, she stood her assigned station bravely as
her sergeant indicated on ABC TV.

Her sergeant? Where was he? The news reports indicated that everyone else in
the
unit had been killed.

Everyone in her vehicle was killed; 5 were taken prisoner from her
group, 11 bodies were recovered at the time of the Lynch rescue. I'm
surprised you are not aware of this, they showed the POWs on TV
endlessly being questioned by Iraqis.


She never stood anywhere.

She was assigned the jump seat over the transmission case in the rear.
She was told to help the soldiers on both sides of her with ammo. That
she did till the crash.

She was out cold and carried
off on
a stretcher.



up with abuse in the hospital. It turned out that she was well treated by
the
medical staff.

Has there been ANY other reports to the contrary ?

Yes. I cited them earlier, even cut and pasted the quote to make it
exceptionally
easy for you. You managed to miss it. The lawyer who made the claims about
his
witnessing her abuse made a lot of money on the deal.

That is not from the U.S. military, and he is quite clear that it was
not the medical staff, but a butcher's thug.




PFC Lynch's only reservation/resentment is that her rescue was filmed.
That was indeed marketed, but it was quite a unique success.

Well jeepers. Doesn't that tell you something right there. They go in on a
special
mission to "rescue" a POW (read "patient") and send a crew along to videotape
the
adventure.

You clearly do not understand that in Iraq, hospitals are Military HQs.

As for the camera, it was not a crew... but as I understand it was a
helmet mounted camera, common place for these type raid. In fact, the
4th division is entirely wired down to a man with GPS and some outfitted
with cameras that transmit live feed. This was probably monitored live
as well, although I'm not sure.


jay
Thu, Nov 13, 2003




I am beginning to realize how right P T Barnum was. There is one born every
minute.


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

In article ,
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
It has been more than 50 years since a POW was rescued by the U.S...

What about that Scott O'Grady feller?

miguel

He was never a POW, but one heck of a survivor.

jay
Thu, Nov 13, 2003


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Go Fig wrote:
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
Go Fig wrote:
It has been more than 50 years since a POW was rescued by the U.S...

What about that Scott O'Grady feller?

He was never a POW, but one heck of a survivor.

Good point. I spaced on the fact that he wasn't actually captured, just
hoping to avoid it.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Go Fig wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:
It is a set of medical instruments and equipment to collect DNA samples.
Those would include semen samples, the victim's hair and pubic hair,
finger nails , and all of the victim's clothing. They are used for the
prosecution of rapists. If there had been any indication of a sexual
assault, I am sure that the doctor would have checked it out. But as was
pointed out to you, there was no reason for the doctor to have carried
out any suck collections because there had not been any reason to suspect
a rape.

So is your threshold of rape unzipped pants and missing buttons ?
Perhaps you should look at the papers concerning date rape

Date rape??? I don't get it. You think some Iraqi got Jessica Lynch drunk
and forced himself on her, then the army busted her out of a frat party?

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

In article ,
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Go Fig wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:
It is a set of medical instruments and equipment to collect DNA samples.
Those would include semen samples, the victim's hair and pubic hair,
finger nails , and all of the victim's clothing. They are used for the
prosecution of rapists. If there had been any indication of a sexual
assault, I am sure that the doctor would have checked it out. But as was
pointed out to you, there was no reason for the doctor to have carried
out any suck collections because there had not been any reason to suspect
a rape.

So is your threshold of rape unzipped pants and missing buttons ?
Perhaps you should look at the papers concerning date rape

Date rape??? I don't get it. You think some Iraqi got Jessica Lynch drunk
and forced himself on her, then the army busted her out of a frat party?

miguel

Come on? She was already unconscious. Rape is a war crime, do you think
its beyond the scope for some thug to try and get away with it. Do you
think he thought his prospects for advancement in the butchers military
looked particularly good at the time.

I don't have a horse in this race, but from what I have seen directly
from Lynch's mouth tells me there is more than a little smoke here.
BTW, Ms Katie of NBC was quite aggressive on this point, as that was the
headline from the night before ABC interview.

jay
Thu, Nov 13, 2003


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

Miguel Cruz wrote in message
...
Go Fig wrote:
She never fired a single shot, she stood her assigned station bravely as
her sergeant indicated on ABC TV.

So I really don't get this whole thing (didn't see the movie and haven't
read that much about her story, so my bits'n'pieces understanding may be
off):

She is in a vehicle that gets hit. She is injured. She is taken to a
local hospital where she is treated well. The army then overreacts and
invades the hospital, who freely turn her over, and then she comes back
home
to the USA.

Where's the legitimate drama here? What makes her more of a hero than
anyone
else who gets hospitalized and then released? Why a movie if not for
domestic propaganda purposes?



Absolutely.
A minor scuffle with no particular credit to anyone, that most who have been
on active service have probably experienced numerous times.
Only the US would film the action, throw medals all over the place and turn
it into an Audy Murphy unspectacular.
I don't think the cinemas will sell (m)any seats outside of the US.

Surreyman