• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What's the truth about Jessica Lynch?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Somebody explain to me why POW's who surrendered are getting hero's welcome parades? What are we, the French?
She didn't surrender fscktard, she was captured. The celebrations are for their safe return.
You need to surrender to be captured... fscktard.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Somebody explain to me why POW's who surrendered are getting hero's welcome parades? What are we, the French?
She didn't surrender fscktard, she was captured. The celebrations are for their safe return.
You need to surrender to be captured... fscktard.
So if she was shot, passed out and was captured did she surrender? Fscktard.

 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Somebody explain to me why POW's who surrendered are getting hero's welcome parades? What are we, the French?
She didn't surrender fscktard, she was captured. The celebrations are for their safe return.
You need to surrender to be captured... fscktard.
So if she was shot, passed out and was captured did she surrender? Fscktard.
She didn't have any bullet wounds, Fscktard. Maybe all the captured solders fainted when they were shot at, fscktard.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Somebody explain to me why POW's who surrendered are getting hero's welcome parades? What are we, the French?
She didn't surrender fscktard, she was captured. The celebrations are for their safe return.
You need to surrender to be captured... fscktard.
So if she was shot, passed out and was captured did she surrender? Fscktard.
She didn't have any bullet wounds, Fscktard. Maybe all the captured solders fainted when they were shot at, fscktard.
I gave you a scenario where she didn't have to surrender to be captured. Another one would be if her vehicle wrecked ans she was knocked unconcious.

Just admit you were wrong and move along.

 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Somebody explain to me why POW's who surrendered are getting hero's welcome parades? What are we, the French?
She didn't surrender fscktard, she was captured. The celebrations are for their safe return.
You need to surrender to be captured... fscktard.
So if she was shot, passed out and was captured did she surrender? Fscktard.
She didn't have any bullet wounds, Fscktard. Maybe all the captured solders fainted when they were shot at, fscktard.
I gave you a scenario where she didn't have to surrender to be captured. Another one would be if her vehicle wrecked ans she was knocked unconcious.

Just admit you were wrong and move along.
Oh yeah... they were in a car accident, that's it.
No American with a gun pointed at their head would ever surrender right? Fscktard.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Oh yeah... they were in a car accident, that's it. No American with a gun pointed at their head would ever surrender right? Fscktard.
So what did happen to her? Do you know?

You said that "you have to surrender to be captured". I clearly demonstrated with two different scenarios, either of which may apply to this situation, why this wasn't necessarily true.

Why don't you just quit being a childish little fscktard and admit you were wrong.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Zrom999
for the other gutless member who had this intellectual gem "way to go USA", that was a coordinated effort of over 5 special ops teams including CIA ops, over 100 soldiers, not one lost and every pow retrieved, even the ones they had to dig up with their bare hands.
Which was coordinated effort of over 5 special ops teams including CIA ops, over 100 soldiers etc? The shooting the ambulance or the staged rescue? It appears you didn't even read the posted article.
Yes, I not only read that article, which was one of the first who called into question some of the details, I also read the other 50 that came out afterwards. I mentioned earlier I remember reading it before, how could I say that unless I actually read it again? Think about it, don't hurt yourself.

Where is the mention of the helicoptor almost hitting power wires?

Where is he mention of the torutre chamber found in that hospital?

Fencer the claims the BBC employees made were of anti-US bias, read that article again. The whole point is to make this sound as if everything was staged purely for theatrical performance. None of this is verfifed other than by one source whose claims have not even been verified, why is that? I never heard that doctor make that claim again. I saw rounds taking chips off the buildings as they fled, someone was not shooting blanks, was that the enemy that wasn't really there as this article claims? Did we have control of that city at the time, no, were hospitals major fighting areas for troops and hiding weapons, yes, but they just left this one unattended with all the weapons found there.

So the facts were not used, and the article itself has only one point, to cast a negative light on the US, I think this is exactly the types of things their own employees complained about, maybe you should ask them though instead of constantly asking me. I changed from caps to bold for ya too in light of a casual reference you made recently, any better?
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Oh yeah... they were in a car accident, that's it. No American with a gun pointed at their head would ever surrender right? Fscktard.
So what did happen to her? Do you know?

You said that "you have to surrender to be captured". I clearly demonstrated with two different scenarios, either of which may apply to this situation, why this wasn't necessarily true.

Why don't you just quit being a childish little fscktard and admit you were wrong.
Riiiiiight... You point out an exception that would have .0002% likely hood. Nice one you little fscktard child.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Oh yeah... they were in a car accident, that's it. No American with a gun pointed at their head would ever surrender right? Fscktard.
So what did happen to her? Do you know?

You said that "you have to surrender to be captured". I clearly demonstrated with two different scenarios, either of which may apply to this situation, why this wasn't necessarily true.

Why don't you just quit being a childish little fscktard and admit you were wrong.
Riiiiiight... You point out an exception that would have .0002% likely hood. Nice one you little fscktard child.
Getting shot and passing out from shock/loss of blood has a slightly higher than .0002% chance of happening in your average combat zone. So does passing out from the concussive effects of a nearby explosion. Or a blow to the head from a large piece of debris. Or... practically anything that happens in the chaos of combat.

You said "You need to surrender to be captured... fscktard." Several examples of how that statement is incorrect have been presented. You are wrong. Even if the total chances of all possible causes is less than .0002%, but higher than zero, you are wrong. So, by your own admission ("an exception that would have .0002% likely hood."), you are wrong. Had you just admitted it, no one would have cared and it probably wouldnt have attracted any more than one comment. Now you are desperately attempting to defend a incorrect statement, and looking dumber by the moment. Congrats
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Zrom999
for the other gutless member who had this intellectual gem "way to go USA", that was a coordinated effort of over 5 special ops teams including CIA ops, over 100 soldiers, not one lost and every pow retrieved, even the ones they had to dig up with their bare hands.
Which was coordinated effort of over 5 special ops teams including CIA ops, over 100 soldiers etc? The shooting the ambulance or the staged rescue? It appears you didn't even read the posted article.
Yes, I not only read that article, which was one of the first who called into question some of the details, I also read the other 50 that came out afterwards. I mentioned earlier I remember reading it before, how could I say that unless I actually read it again? Think about it, don't hurt yourself.

Where is the mention of the helicoptor almost hitting power wires?

Where is he mention of the torutre chamber found in that hospital?

Fencer the claims the BBC employees made were of anti-US bias, read that article again. The whole point is to make this sound as if everything was staged purely for theatrical performance. None of this is verfifed other than by one source whose claims have not even been verified, why is that? I never heard that doctor make that claim again. I saw rounds taking chips off the buildings as they fled, someone was not shooting blanks, was that the enemy that wasn't really there as this article claims? Did we have control of that city at the time, no, were hospitals major fighting areas for troops and hiding weapons, yes, but they just left this one unattended with all the weapons found there.

So the facts were not used, and the article itself has only one point, to cast a negative light on the US, I think this is exactly the types of things their own employees complained about, maybe you should ask them though instead of constantly asking me. I changed from caps to bold for ya too in light of a casual reference you made recently, any better?
Bold is better than captials. Looks less like shouting and more like you're making emphasis. The article itself was a synopsis of the BBC "correspondant" program. IMHO I would say that the BBC were telling the side of the story that I was never likely to hear. I hadn't known that anyone thought what the doctor claimed. Nor did I until recently realise that she had no bullet/knife wounds. I don't see it as an open and shut case of "anti-US" bias as you claim. Maybe it's because I'd been overwhelmed with the entirely non-questioning stories previously. If the BBC hadn't reported what they'd heard from these sources they'd have been accused of a "pro-US" cover up. The original rescue story of Private Lynch is to be found within the BBC archives also. The facts of the story are that none of us actually know who was in the hospital at the time of the rescue except for those who were actually there. I don't see how the "Saddam's gone so now those with the knowledge (ie scientists) are telling the truth and so he had WMD" arguement cannot also apply to this scenario. Saddam's gone and so is the doctor telling the truth? I'm sure you see what I mean.

Cheers,

Andy

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,318
4,015
126
But doctors now say she has no recollection of the whole episode and probably never will.
---------------------
I wonder why?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY