an interesting analysis on the part of klein, who most of us know from 'no logo' but whose best work is in the newspaper media.
i am uncertain if this belongs in 'war' or not. it has 'war' in the title but isn't about war per se.
Why two women went to war
- Thread starter kobayashi
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i am uncertain if this belongs in 'war' or not. it has 'war' in the title but isn't about war per se.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
It can stay where it is. You might get more rational responses in "regular" FYM.
More Unobjective, Anti-US military rubbish. Its sad how people will believe the most unsubstantiated rumor over men of honesty and integrity that at any second were ready to give their lives. I know many of the Marines and other soldiers that served in and around Nasiriyah where these events took place and its sad to see inaccurate and out of contexts rumors get thrusts into the limelight and are turned by extremist into the gospel truth. In stead of asking someone at the BBC what happened, ask the soldiers that were actually in the operation what happened. Although losses in the war were light, Nasiriyah was not a playground. More US service men and women were killed in combat in Nasiriyah than in any other town or City in Iraq.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This is sad in so many ways. It's sad that these said incidents had to happen to these women, it's sad that people lost their lives, and it's sad that this is very par for the course given today's political atmoshere.
STING2 said:
'nasiriyah as a playground' was never an image klein projected. not even close to it. she discussed the BBC report.
and on that point, what is your trouble with the BBC? there are already many, many, many accounts of the bravery and stoicism which you speak of elsewhere, even within the BBC. all they have done is gone and spoken to some who are outside of the military operation.
perhaps it is a fabricated story but it is, both at best and worst, no more or no less, truthful than any of the other stories in existence.
i see no rational reasoning to doubt the bbc account more than any other. please enlighten me?
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Thanks for the article Kobayashi.
I'm saddened by the lack of outrage on the part of my gov't in the Rachel Corrie incident. Any other admin. would have at least sent a stern warning to the Israeli gov't.
I didn't take the article to diminish the ordeal Pvt. Lynch went through just the spin the Gov't put on it.
I'm saddened by the lack of outrage on the part of my gov't in the Rachel Corrie incident. Any other admin. would have at least sent a stern warning to the Israeli gov't.
I didn't take the article to diminish the ordeal Pvt. Lynch went through just the spin the Gov't put on it.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Wow, I'm not the only one asking Sting to enlighten us. 
Kobayashi,
"'nasiriyah as a playground' was never an image klein projected. not even close to it. she discussed the BBC report."
"and on that point, what is your trouble with the BBC? there are already many, many, many accounts of the bravery and stoicism which you speak of elsewhere, even within the BBC. all they have done is gone and spoken to some who are outside of the military operation.
perhaps it is a fabricated story but it is, both at best and worst, no more or no less, truthful than any of the other stories in existence."
"i see no rational reasoning to doubt the bbc account more than any other. please enlighten me?"
Well look at this:
"The Iraqi doctors who treated her found no evidence of battle wounds, and they donated their own blood to save her life. And witnesses have told the BBC that the SEALs already knew there were no Iraqi fighters in the area."
If Lynch had no battle wounds why the hell was she being treated to save her life? Why was she carried out in a stretcher? Why is her roommate dead? No fighting, no battle eh? What a load of #@$%$#.
No Iraqi fighters in the area? That may have been what the supply convey that was ambushed hoped for prior to being ambushed, but for the BBC to further that claim in light of all the fighting that took place there, primarily from militia dressed as civilians, is poor reporting or simply stubburn attempt to be critical of an operation that was an obvious success despite the claims of what would happen from the anti-war movement.
The most honest account you will get on this particular issue is from the men and women, some of them dear friends of mine, who were there risking their lives for their country. People that were actually there when events were happening rather than people who show up days later and write down strories from people who cannot even prove they were there. The military filmed the operation, does the BBC have any comparable evidence? NO!
The Men and Women of the US military are there for one reason and one reason only, service to their country. The Media has one motive, to find the hottest story that will attract the most viewers, which means more money for them. That does not mean one cannot trust the BBC, but it does make them less trustworthy than a military source that was actually there on the spot when events were taking place, and is not going to profit from the story they tell.
"'nasiriyah as a playground' was never an image klein projected. not even close to it. she discussed the BBC report."
"and on that point, what is your trouble with the BBC? there are already many, many, many accounts of the bravery and stoicism which you speak of elsewhere, even within the BBC. all they have done is gone and spoken to some who are outside of the military operation.
perhaps it is a fabricated story but it is, both at best and worst, no more or no less, truthful than any of the other stories in existence."
"i see no rational reasoning to doubt the bbc account more than any other. please enlighten me?"
Well look at this:
"The Iraqi doctors who treated her found no evidence of battle wounds, and they donated their own blood to save her life. And witnesses have told the BBC that the SEALs already knew there were no Iraqi fighters in the area."
If Lynch had no battle wounds why the hell was she being treated to save her life? Why was she carried out in a stretcher? Why is her roommate dead? No fighting, no battle eh? What a load of #@$%$#.
No Iraqi fighters in the area? That may have been what the supply convey that was ambushed hoped for prior to being ambushed, but for the BBC to further that claim in light of all the fighting that took place there, primarily from militia dressed as civilians, is poor reporting or simply stubburn attempt to be critical of an operation that was an obvious success despite the claims of what would happen from the anti-war movement.
The most honest account you will get on this particular issue is from the men and women, some of them dear friends of mine, who were there risking their lives for their country. People that were actually there when events were happening rather than people who show up days later and write down strories from people who cannot even prove they were there. The military filmed the operation, does the BBC have any comparable evidence? NO!
The Men and Women of the US military are there for one reason and one reason only, service to their country. The Media has one motive, to find the hottest story that will attract the most viewers, which means more money for them. That does not mean one cannot trust the BBC, but it does make them less trustworthy than a military source that was actually there on the spot when events were taking place, and is not going to profit from the story they tell.
STING2 said:
well the opinion of the BBC story is that the details surrounding Private Lynch's treatment are, at least in part, a fabrication. that's why. if you don't want to believe it then...don't.
i, and many others around the world i'm sure, don't have the advantageous insight of friends involved in the actual conflicts as you do. you consider this to be a great deficit for me. in some ways i'm sure it is and in others it might be an advantage.
you are correct the media has one motive: eyeballs. and that is why, as i have said many times on this forum, we must take what the media tells us, especially during wartime, at face value and not much more. the bbc report deserves no less scrutiny (i would say no more, but i don't think that too much scrutiny can be placed on such a thing) than the umpteen reports we have of everything else from wmd's, possible-potential-maybe mobile chemical labs to private lynch's story.
you know the points you are focusing on are really part and parcel to the point klein is making, as supastar and scarletwine pointed out.
If its a fabrication, then what are the BBC's answers for the above questions I posed? Its rather obvious where the BBC's bias was prior to the war so the fact that they are trying to stir shit up I guess is not surprising. But the evidence the BBC has presented for their allegation is not any better than the evidence Farmer Bill had for the UFO he saw early yesterday morning while milking his Cows.
As for WMD in Iraq, its a fact that Iraq still had 10,000 Liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells when the UN inspectors were forced to leave back in 1998. Even Iraq admits this fact. The question is where is this WMD now. If it was destroyed, there would be evidence of the destruction and its Iraq's responsibility to show the remains of the destroyed weapons. 30,000 Bio/Chem shells is a hell of a lot of metal. This stuff does not vanish into thin air no matter what you do with it.
The USA and other UN states participating in the disarmament of Iraq have only that requirment, to insure Iraq is disarmed. It was never incumbent on them to find WMD only to insure Iraq no longer had WMD. Iraq was the only country required to produce evidence of its remaining WMD and or its destruction.
As for WMD in Iraq, its a fact that Iraq still had 10,000 Liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Bio/Chem capable shells when the UN inspectors were forced to leave back in 1998. Even Iraq admits this fact. The question is where is this WMD now. If it was destroyed, there would be evidence of the destruction and its Iraq's responsibility to show the remains of the destroyed weapons. 30,000 Bio/Chem shells is a hell of a lot of metal. This stuff does not vanish into thin air no matter what you do with it.
The USA and other UN states participating in the disarmament of Iraq have only that requirment, to insure Iraq is disarmed. It was never incumbent on them to find WMD only to insure Iraq no longer had WMD. Iraq was the only country required to produce evidence of its remaining WMD and or its destruction.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
STING2 said:
Cripe why did you turn another ****ing thread into a US mititary in Iraq theme.
The subject was the US gov't ignoring the death of Rachel Corrie and glorifying Pvt. Lynch.Sounds like your getting a little defensive that your gov't lied to you about the proof they had of WMDs.
edited to add:
Sorry that may have been a little harsh, but again? There are other angles to a subject.
Last edited:
Scarletwine,
If you would take the chance to ****ing read the thread, you'll see that the subjects of Iraq, the military, and WMD were all mentioned prior to anything I posted on those matters. I have never turned any thread into a different subject matter. I have only responded to things posted by other people in the thread on those matters.
"Sounds like your getting a little defensive that your gov't lied to you about the proof they had of WMDs"
I have said this now for perhaps nearly a year. It is not a requirment of the US government or any other government to prove that Iraq has WMDs. It is Iraq's obligation to prove that they do not have WMD's. The only requirment of the USA or member states of the UN is to insure that Iraq does not have WMDs. There is a difference in proving someone has something and insuring that they do not have something.
The government simply was going by the UN inspectors Claims, Saddams regime's documents, from 1998, that Iraq did indeed have 10,000 liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Chemical/Bio shells at that time. Inspectors were kicked out at the end of 1998.
From 1998 to 2002, Iraq claims that it destroyed the above WMD but never showed the evidence of such destruction or handed the WMD over. They were required to either hand over the WMD that they had back in 1998, or prove that they indeed destroyed it from 1998-2002. If the government of Iraq did indeed destroy the above weapons, they would have plenty of evidence that they could show the international community to prove that point. But they never did.
Its a very simple and basic point and its a bit puzzling how some people after all this time have failed to understand it.
If you would take the chance to ****ing read the thread, you'll see that the subjects of Iraq, the military, and WMD were all mentioned prior to anything I posted on those matters. I have never turned any thread into a different subject matter. I have only responded to things posted by other people in the thread on those matters.
"Sounds like your getting a little defensive that your gov't lied to you about the proof they had of WMDs"
I have said this now for perhaps nearly a year. It is not a requirment of the US government or any other government to prove that Iraq has WMDs. It is Iraq's obligation to prove that they do not have WMD's. The only requirment of the USA or member states of the UN is to insure that Iraq does not have WMDs. There is a difference in proving someone has something and insuring that they do not have something.
The government simply was going by the UN inspectors Claims, Saddams regime's documents, from 1998, that Iraq did indeed have 10,000 liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Chemical/Bio shells at that time. Inspectors were kicked out at the end of 1998.
From 1998 to 2002, Iraq claims that it destroyed the above WMD but never showed the evidence of such destruction or handed the WMD over. They were required to either hand over the WMD that they had back in 1998, or prove that they indeed destroyed it from 1998-2002. If the government of Iraq did indeed destroy the above weapons, they would have plenty of evidence that they could show the international community to prove that point. But they never did.
Its a very simple and basic point and its a bit puzzling how some people after all this time have failed to understand it.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Back to the original topic:
I can understand where the author is trying to go with this piece. Unfortunately, the hyperbole relied on to repaint the images of these two women undercuts the author's credibility.
It really shouldn't be surprising that the US government doesn't portray Ms. Corrie as a "hero".
I can understand where the author is trying to go with this piece. Unfortunately, the hyperbole relied on to repaint the images of these two women undercuts the author's credibility.
It really shouldn't be surprising that the US government doesn't portray Ms. Corrie as a "hero".
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Sting, when your government speaks before the nation and the UN saying it has intelligence that Iraq has in their poccesion of WMD and they use that as a reason to persuade the people to go to war, then I would say we deserve to know if this "intelligence" was fabricated. If they just used the resolutions as their reason then yes MAYBE they wouldn't be required to prove anything, but they didn't they said they had evidence. Now show us. How are we suppose to trust our "intelligence" for now on if they don't prove it?
Now can we get back to the topic at hand?
Rachel was a busy person teaching kids how to properly dispose of American flags.
What was the question? Why isn't the government making a hero out of her?http://www.honestreporting.com/graphics/articles/corrie.jpg
Last edited:
Bulldozer Accident
The media presents a flag-burning American as a peace hero, and ignores important IDF anti-smuggling activities.
American college student Rachel Corrie was tragically killed on Sunday when she fell down as an IDF bulldozer destroyed a house in Gaza.
The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.
Corrie apparently stood atop a mound of dirt as the bulldozer approached the house, but then fell backward, tumbling down the mound and out of sight. The bulldozer continued and accidentally crushed her.
The IDF Spokesman said that soldiers repeatedly warned demonstrators to keep a safe distance.
Corrie was a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement. She was known for anti-Israel and anti-American activities, as this photo from Gaza (http://www.honestreporting.com/graphics/articles/corrie.jpg) shows Corrie burning an American flag, while Palestinian children look on.
(In general, we wonder on what basis the International Solidarity Movement justifies shielding a house used for weapons smuggling.)
The Washington Post (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35126-2003Mar16.html) notes two important points:
1) soldiers driving an armored bulldozer have limited visibility because of the narrow window.
2) One of the ISM founders admits the protesters might not have been as disciplined in their protest as they should have been.
Most media reports failed to mention that the IDF bulldozer was looking for smuggling tunnels. Instead, reports described the house sympathetically as "the home of a Gazan doctor."
And the entire mainstream media neglected to mention Corrie's anti-American activities and flag-burning.
HonestReporting encourages members to monitor your local media to see how they are reporting the circumstances of Corrie's unfortunate death, and her personal background.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Bulldozer_Accident.asp
The media presents a flag-burning American as a peace hero, and ignores important IDF anti-smuggling activities.
American college student Rachel Corrie was tragically killed on Sunday when she fell down as an IDF bulldozer destroyed a house in Gaza.
The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.
Corrie apparently stood atop a mound of dirt as the bulldozer approached the house, but then fell backward, tumbling down the mound and out of sight. The bulldozer continued and accidentally crushed her.
The IDF Spokesman said that soldiers repeatedly warned demonstrators to keep a safe distance.
Corrie was a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement. She was known for anti-Israel and anti-American activities, as this photo from Gaza (http://www.honestreporting.com/graphics/articles/corrie.jpg) shows Corrie burning an American flag, while Palestinian children look on.
(In general, we wonder on what basis the International Solidarity Movement justifies shielding a house used for weapons smuggling.)
The Washington Post (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35126-2003Mar16.html) notes two important points:
1) soldiers driving an armored bulldozer have limited visibility because of the narrow window.
2) One of the ISM founders admits the protesters might not have been as disciplined in their protest as they should have been.
Most media reports failed to mention that the IDF bulldozer was looking for smuggling tunnels. Instead, reports described the house sympathetically as "the home of a Gazan doctor."
And the entire mainstream media neglected to mention Corrie's anti-American activities and flag-burning.
HonestReporting encourages members to monitor your local media to see how they are reporting the circumstances of Corrie's unfortunate death, and her personal background.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Bulldozer_Accident.asp
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Based on your description above, it appears the press may have been more sympathetic to Ms. Corrie than Ms. Klien suggests.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Dread,
Those pictures look about as real as the ones sicy does with photo shop.
The article you posted is from a bias site.
It is difficult to give it any credibility.
Those pictures look about as real as the ones sicy does with photo shop.
The article you posted is from a bias site.
It is difficult to give it any credibility.
It is difficult to give Ms. Klein any credibility as well, having visited her site and read it. I can post other links as well, including eyewitness accounts of the fact that Rachel decided to climb forward onto the bulldozer, instead of move to the side or away from it. According to one of her friends in the ISM, she was climbing up onto the bucket and instead fell under it. I did not post those because they were published in publications that are from Israel.
Fact is, the pictures of Rachel that were portrayed as having been taken just minutes before the aweful incident, were not actually taken, minutes before the incident, but hours before the incident.
Both sides play the propaganda game.
I am curious though, what makes my article biased? What makes mine any more biased than miss Klein. Also, please, demonstrate how my pictures are a fake? There are others that come from the same incident.
Fact is, the pictures of Rachel that were portrayed as having been taken just minutes before the aweful incident, were not actually taken, minutes before the incident, but hours before the incident.
Both sides play the propaganda game.
I am curious though, what makes my article biased? What makes mine any more biased than miss Klein. Also, please, demonstrate how my pictures are a fake? There are others that come from the same incident.
One thing, for everyone, I view Rachel as a person who stood up for what she believed in. I respect that and I view her death as a God awful thing to have happened.
That said there are two sides to every story...but that does not bring her back, nor does it change the fact that she is dead.
That said there are two sides to every story...but that does not bring her back, nor does it change the fact that she is dead.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
From the Washington Post article cited by Dreadsox:
I wonder if this is a prevailing attitude among organizers of the peace movement? It sounded a tad bit callous to me.
I wonder if this is a prevailing attitude among organizers of the peace movement? It sounded a tad bit callous to me.
One more thing..... I find Ms. Klein to be very disrespectful of PFC Lynch, by calling her Pte. She is a Private First Class. Kind of odd that she changes her correct rank in her article. I also find her tone condescending and nasty when she says:
Unlike Pte. Lynch, Ms. Corrie did not set out to engage in combat; she went to try to thwart it.
Miss Klein makes reference to the BBC story. The reporter of the story did a very nice backpedal on CNN. Here is the transcript:
HARRIS: Is it your belief right now based upon your investigation that this rescue of Lynch was in any way a staged event and not real?
KAMPFNER: No. First things first. Credit where it is due. The Americans had a legitimate right in getting Lynch out of the hospital in Nasiriya. They had no way of knowing what her fate was, whether she was being well or badly treated.
So lets talk about BIAS.
Disrespecting PFC Lynch by calling her Private Lynch. Trivilizing the fact that PFC Lynch was serving her country and working to help liberate an oppressed nation, a cause which is no no way shape or form, less noble or important than the cause of Ms. Corrie.
Peace
Unlike Pte. Lynch, Ms. Corrie did not set out to engage in combat; she went to try to thwart it.
Miss Klein makes reference to the BBC story. The reporter of the story did a very nice backpedal on CNN. Here is the transcript:
HARRIS: Is it your belief right now based upon your investigation that this rescue of Lynch was in any way a staged event and not real?
KAMPFNER: No. First things first. Credit where it is due. The Americans had a legitimate right in getting Lynch out of the hospital in Nasiriya. They had no way of knowing what her fate was, whether she was being well or badly treated.
So lets talk about BIAS.
Disrespecting PFC Lynch by calling her Private Lynch. Trivilizing the fact that PFC Lynch was serving her country and working to help liberate an oppressed nation, a cause which is no no way shape or form, less noble or important than the cause of Ms. Corrie.
Peace
BonoVoxSupastar,
"Sting, when your government speaks before the nation and the UN saying it has intelligence that Iraq has in their poccesion of WMD and they use that as a reason to persuade the people to go to war, then I would say we deserve to know if this "intelligence" was fabricated. If they just used the resolutions as their reason then yes MAYBE they wouldn't be required to prove anything, but they didn't they said they had evidence. Now show us. How are we suppose to trust our "intelligence" for now on if they don't prove it?"
"Now can we get back to the topic at hand?"
Regardless of what some government officials may have or may not of said, the official line of the US government and the United Nations itself is that it is not incumbent upon any member state to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction.
It is the media that has unfortunately suggested that the main reason for military action in Iraq is classified proof that Iraq has WMD. There may in fact be classified proof that shows Iraq did at one time, months or a year ago, had WMD. But the main line of this administration has been the record of what Iraq had back in 1998 which NO one disputes, not even the Iraqi's themselves. Failure to give such WMD up or prove it was destroyed in the years from 1998-2002 is all member states need to be authorized to take military action against Iraq.
Much of the proof that the intelligence community had may be months old or older and with Iraq having since destroyed and removed such evidence to an unknown location. This is why it is difficult or impossible to match up prior evidence with evidence currently on the ground. In addition, human intelligence that may have had proof may have been found and murdered by Saddam's security agents. Its happened many times before.
What is relevant though is what Iraq's obligations are vs. the obligations of the international community in regards to any breech of the 1991 ceacefire agreement.
There is not a single country or the UN itself that would claim that after 12 years, Iraq had complied with all its obligations and answered all the questions and provided all the evidence and materials of its WMD program. Any form of non-compliance by Iraq is all member states needed to be authorized to take military action. Saddam was never given 3,6, or 9 strikes and your out program. The requirements of the resolutions and the 1991 ceacefire were unconditional.
oh and the above was just answering a question posed by you to me.
"Sting, when your government speaks before the nation and the UN saying it has intelligence that Iraq has in their poccesion of WMD and they use that as a reason to persuade the people to go to war, then I would say we deserve to know if this "intelligence" was fabricated. If they just used the resolutions as their reason then yes MAYBE they wouldn't be required to prove anything, but they didn't they said they had evidence. Now show us. How are we suppose to trust our "intelligence" for now on if they don't prove it?"
"Now can we get back to the topic at hand?"
Regardless of what some government officials may have or may not of said, the official line of the US government and the United Nations itself is that it is not incumbent upon any member state to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not have weapons of mass destruction.
It is the media that has unfortunately suggested that the main reason for military action in Iraq is classified proof that Iraq has WMD. There may in fact be classified proof that shows Iraq did at one time, months or a year ago, had WMD. But the main line of this administration has been the record of what Iraq had back in 1998 which NO one disputes, not even the Iraqi's themselves. Failure to give such WMD up or prove it was destroyed in the years from 1998-2002 is all member states need to be authorized to take military action against Iraq.
Much of the proof that the intelligence community had may be months old or older and with Iraq having since destroyed and removed such evidence to an unknown location. This is why it is difficult or impossible to match up prior evidence with evidence currently on the ground. In addition, human intelligence that may have had proof may have been found and murdered by Saddam's security agents. Its happened many times before.
What is relevant though is what Iraq's obligations are vs. the obligations of the international community in regards to any breech of the 1991 ceacefire agreement.
There is not a single country or the UN itself that would claim that after 12 years, Iraq had complied with all its obligations and answered all the questions and provided all the evidence and materials of its WMD program. Any form of non-compliance by Iraq is all member states needed to be authorized to take military action. Saddam was never given 3,6, or 9 strikes and your out program. The requirements of the resolutions and the 1991 ceacefire were unconditional.
oh and the above was just answering a question posed by you to me.
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Dreadsox said:
Silly Rabbit! Don't you know ANYTHING????
Biased = anything that questions the left.
Fair, straightforward journalism = left-leaning media publications.
Get with the program!
~U2Alabama
Ms. Klein paints a picture of a peace loving young woman. She paints a picture of a woman that believed in the non-violent approach to slow the conflict down.
Here are Ms. Corrie's own words on the topic of Palestinian fighters/terrorists:
Ms. Corrie Continues:
Yes she writes about the courage of the TERRORISTS. They were TERRORISTS. One of the two TERRORISTS that she writes of with such admiration was wearing a suicide belt. Here are the statistics from the morning of February 10, 1993:
February 10: A drive-by terrorist shooting at the entrance to the IDF Southern Command base in Be?er Sheva killed two female soldiers and injured four others. One of the Palestinian terrorists was killed at the scene; the second, wearing an explosives belt, fled in the direction of a nearby school when he was shot and killed by a soldier and police officer. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.
HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack. This is the attack she writes about in her journal. These friends of hers.
You accuse me of posting biased articles. Ms. Klein, clearly has her own agenda with this article.
Peace
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
Oh, no, I don't think so. I've never been in a group that tolerated the idea that any of our protesters should be hurt or killed, and this statement shocks me. I have never been in a group whose members burned American flags or anything like this, either. I represented Oxfam as a protester and I'll be damned if any of us had anything to do with this stuff. I would also like to put it on record that we're not saying stuff like this about Jessica Lynch, and you're right, Dread, they should have used her proper title. She didn't do anything wrong. I do think that perhaps the politicians wanted to manipulate her but it wasn't her fault. She was just doing her job. She's from a poor state, West Virginia, from an area that has 30% unemployment, and she wanted to get money for school.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
Dreadsox said:
I did not see that question in the article, MSNBC is not the government.
By the way Deep, the flag burning picture, along with others including her journal post about her activities on that day, were also displayed on numerous sites that have made a hero of Rachel. SO please don't dismiss it as right wing propaganda. She was no fan of the United States governement.
Oh, one more thing:
Oh, one more thing:
I think it is clear the author feels that the United States Governement has not done enough to achknowledge her.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
