Jessica Lynch's beating worse than earlier reported

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-06 01:41pm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/7 ... 7532c.html

It seems they beat her worse than they orginally reported. They're being guarded about statements for once but it sounds like the injuries are the result of toture. I'm not suprised that they would, Saddam's men are barbarians in ever sense of the word. At least she's recovering well. Good news indeed.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-06 02:02pm

Its quite understandable they did this,in their screwed-up mind she was nothing so their cavemen mentality came out much stronger than when they have male prisoners.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-04-06 02:53pm

Well ,with the example provided by the Iraqi lawyer who led US forces to Private Lynch, at least we know that ordinary Iraqis are generally decent people...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-04-06 02:55pm

All trhe more reason we need to make Saddam and his little gang of thugs suffer!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-06 03:01pm

I still say we stick him in a prison cell with sex-starved Bubba.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-06 03:47pm

Would this qualify as a war crime? Saddam and his government are just giving us more reasons to oust them.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-06 04:16pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Would this qualify as a war crime? Saddam and his government are just giving us more reasons to oust them.

It is a war crime. At the very least for those that carried them out. If it's been ordered by higher ups they too would guilty of war crimes. And there's reason to believe they've tortured others, possibly even execute them.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-04-06 06:40pm

Quite frankly, I'm very suspicious of all Jessica Lynch-related news after that bullshit about her having multiple gunshot and stab wounds (later discovered to be total fabrication). Look carefully at the article:

Officials have refused to say why so many of Lynch's bones were broken, but it's likely she was tortured.

In short, the "torture" bit is the reporter's own conjecture, and does not come from any official source whatsoever. There are too many cowboy journalists out there who report their own gut feelings as news.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-04-06 08:02pm

In Ethics we were taught not to ediatorialize, just state the basic facts. THis went out the window in the 1980's. Fuck now that any idiot with a camcorder can be a reporter, and the stations want a new sound bite constantly, everyone feeding like sharks on the same footage, that's gone so far out the window it's not funny.

In journelism Ethics it used to be, don't follow in the wake of Jonestown, D-Day etc. and get your ass killed trying to get a good shot. Now it's try not to get too many people killed getting your money shot, because you can be sued later.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-04-06 08:17pm

Montcalm wrote:Its quite understandable they did this,in their screwed-up mind she was nothing so their cavemen mentality came out much stronger than when they have male prisoners.

I'd be extremely surprised if she's not been gang-raped.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-06 10:04pm

LadyTevar wrote:I'd be extremely surprised if she's not been gang-raped.

Why? Isn't it a rather rash assumption that Iraqi soldiers are rapists? I know that it would remain consistent with their general lack of regard for human rights, what with evidence of torture chambers and whatnot, but let's try and keep the civilian speculation to a minimum, if only for decency's sake. At least until there are reports of someone having evidence that she was raped at all, anyway. Speculating on the possibility of her being raped doesn't put us any higher than the reporter who said that it was likely that she was tortured without any evidence to back it up. Let's just work with what we know for now, and save the speculation for later.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-04-06 10:09pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:I'd be extremely surprised if she's not been gang-raped.
Why? Isn't it a rather rash assumption that Iraqi soldiers are rapists? I know that it would remain consistent with their general lack of regard for human rights, what with evidence of torture chambers and whatnot, but let's try and keep the civilian speculation to a minimum, if only for decency's sake. At least until there are reports of someone having evidence that she was raped at all, anyway. Speculating on the possibility of her being raped doesn't put us any higher than the reporter who said that it was likely that she was tortured without any evidence to back it up. Let's just work with what we know for now, and save the speculation for later.

Except that Saddam's regime routinely uses rape as a method of interrgation of female prisoners, and has professional rapists on its payroll.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-06 10:18pm

fgalkin wrote:Except that Saddam's regime routinely uses rape as a method of interrgation of female prisoners, and has professional rapists on its payroll.

So? There's still no evidence that this particular woman was raped. Are you suggesting that every woman ever taken into custody in Iraq is raped immediately, even while in serious condition on a hospital bed? Because that's the only condition where you would get to legitimately post a

emoticon and act as though rape is a foregone conclusion in this case.

Not to mention the fact that the informer who saved her life reported nothing worse than a "slap". Sorry, but this is bullshit. If you've got evidence, fine. Present it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. They say that the first casualty of war is the truth, but that doesn't mean you have to revel in it.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-04-06 10:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:
fgalkin wrote:Except that Saddam's regime routinely uses rape as a method of interrgation of female prisoners, and has professional rapists on its payroll.
So? There's still no evidence that this particular woman was raped. Are you suggesting that every woman ever taken into custody in Iraq is raped immediately, even while in serious condition on a hospital bed? Because that's the only condition where you would get to legitimately post a emoticon and act as though rape is a foregone conclusion in this case.

Not to mention the fact that the informer who saved her life reported nothing worse than a "slap". Sorry, but this is bullshit. If you've got evidence, fine. Present it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. They say that the first casualty of war is the truth, but that doesn't mean you have to revel in it.

No, I'm saying there is a strong possibility that it's true.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-06 10:24pm

fgalkin wrote:No, I'm saying there is a strong possibility that it's true.

And that qualifies you to roll your eyes in contempt at someone for saying that we need evidence before reporting something as fact?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-06 10:27pm

Its wierd but it looks like some members here fantasized about female POWs being raped

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-04-06 10:40pm

Montcalm wrote:Its wierd but it looks like some members here fantasized about female POWs being raped

It's always been one of the things that is brought up when any talk of women in combat is discussed it seems.

Anyway, I want to count on Iraq having professional rapists on staff?

WTF!?! is wrong with people. What are these guys, evil porn stars or something?

I was also under the impressiong that rape was actually more effective in breaking male prisoners than female. Something about being mentally prepared for the possibility or something.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-04-06 10:40pm

I meant to say "comment on Iraq having professional rapists".

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-06 10:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:
fgalkin wrote:No, I'm saying there is a strong possibility that it's true.
And that qualifies you to roll your eyes in contempt at someone for saying that we need evidence before reporting something as fact?

Just another slave to the media, Wong... Someone speculates, and it's automatically taken in as much faith as Fundies take the Bible as the Word of God.

And where the FUCK did the "professional rapists" claim come from?? I keep envisioning Ron Jeremy in full-out bondage gear, and that's just not pretty. Fgalkin, you're paying for my therapy.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-04-06 10:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:
fgalkin wrote:No, I'm saying there is a strong possibility that it's true.
And that qualifies you to roll your eyes in contempt at someone for saying that we need evidence before reporting something as fact?

Actually, I was rolling my eyes at this

Isn't it a rather rash assumption that Iraqi soldiers are rapists

As for the rest of the post, yes we do need evidence before we can make judgements.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-06 10:57pm

fgalkin wrote:Actually, I was rolling my eyes at this
Isn't it a rather rash assumption that Iraqi soldiers are rapists

Why? It IS rash to assume that simply because they're the enemy, they're rapists. And to assert that evidence of rape needs to be brought forth before anyone can make any kind of conclusion is just PROVING that. That's the definition of being rash: To jump to conclusions before evidence is brought forth.

C'mon now... Let's apply a bit of logic and humility here...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-06 10:58pm

fgalkin wrote:Actually, I was rolling my eyes at this
Isn't it a rather rash assumption that Iraqi soldiers are rapists

Let me see; you claim that they have special professional rapists on staff without bothering to produce evidence, so you think it's OK to generalize that Iraqi soldiers are rapists?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-04-06 11:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:
fgalkin wrote:Actually, I was rolling my eyes at this
Isn't it a rather rash assumption that Iraqi soldiers are rapists
Let me see; you claim that they have special professional rapists on staff without bothering to produce evidence, so you think it's OK to generalize that Iraqi soldiers are rapists?

Its just as dumb as when some feminists say that all men are rapists.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-04-06 11:12pm

I'd prefer more evidence to that effect, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if she were gang-raped or sexually molested in any way. It happens in war, especially when one or both sides have very little motive to be humane.

I don't even think they have a number for the women the Germans raped in Russia and other portions of the Eastern Front (There is an amusing story about a Spanish volunteer division sent by Franco to the Eastern Front being reputed ladies' men and putting condoms on their bayonets during an inspection by German officers), and it's estimated that 2 million German (or German and Polish, can't remember which) women were raped by Soviet troops during their advance. And need I mention Imperial Japan and their actions?

Rape, no matter which gender is targeted, causes pain and humiliation to the victim, and thus, inhumane soldiers or officers trying to break a prisoner's will probably won't see anything wrong with it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-06 11:20pm

Steve wrote:I'd prefer more evidence to that effect, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if she were gang-raped or sexually molested in any way. It happens in war, especially when one or both sides have very little motive to be humane.

She was so badly injured that she was put in a hospital bed and they were thinking of amputating her leg. I would find it very surprising if she was gang-raped.