Jessica Lynch 'rescue' was a load of bollocks

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by msr, May 15, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

  2. I always thoght it interesting that they rescued a young pretty white chick and never bothered their arrses about that big, black bird that was captured.
    PR on this sort of scale sucks.  :(
     
  3. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    Firstly, I find it quite extraordinary that the Guardian would have the sheer front to accuse anyone of spin given it is the official mouthpiece of the loony-left that couldn't give a balanced viewpoint if the instruction book leapt up and tw@tted the editor in the knackers.

    That being said, it does raise some interesting points, and confirms what I always believed, which is that the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch was little more than a stunt to bolster support back home.

    A lot of debate has gone on on this site about the merits and pitfalls of "embedded media", but this is cynicism gone mad. It has been fairly obvious that the SPAMS have gone overboard on the whole patriotic dig ("Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade." Brig Brooks - if this is true then I wonder what happened to all of those soldiers that were left behind in Vietnam? Does this give the lie to the claim? what creed?) skirting over detail for images that will fit into neat little 2 min segments for news broadcast (and if anyone has seen the abysmal quality of syndicated US News on the likes of ABC, NBC, Fox et al you will understand what I mean). Interestingly, the US are dodging any questions relating to this rescue, probably because they have something to hide about the circumstances.

    In fairness, the MoD has tried it on with Hoon stood in front of the cameras decrying the "execution" of British soldiers, while the families were being told that their NOK had died in entirely different circumstances. If we think back, the US fixation with spin really infected British politics with the arrival of Blair in 94.

    I have asked the question before, and I ask it again, how long before the movie deal arrives? No wonder Bush was keen to talk to Bruckheimer, what better to have going into an election where the President patriotically "kicks the ass" of evil after 9/11 than a film depicting the "brave souls" risking their lives in a daredevil rescue of the poor, innocent, tortured American pte in the name of their moral "creed". If the SPAMS aren't careful, that creed could turn into the one of Mephistopheles!
     
  4. I think it was fairly obvious from nannoo second one, that it was all a load of bolloxs.

    I think a Hollywood movie would prove that the yanks have put Joe G and Joe S to shame.

    They are the masters of bullshit.

    WMD is another example…………….

    FFS Hitler used a pretext for Poland…………in retrospect………….

    Chris
     
  5. I do not doubt for one second the previous posts in this thread, but, if the propaganda machine was in progress then why not now? I suppose we will see in a couple of months when a rival film/TV company run the "alternate" version of what went on.

    don't we love the media industry?!!
     
  6. Woopert stated :

    What complete and utter bollocks.  I suppose you are a Torygraph reader who cannot read a piece of media unless it is written by some right wing hack pampering to the middle classes.  Get real and recognise that the Guardian relates to the man in the street than you give it credit.

    Edited to put the quote in a quote panel
    W
     
  7. woopert

    woopert LE Moderator

    I do read the Torygraph, along with most of the other boroadsheets, the Economist, The Tablet (hardly what you could call right-wing), Private Eye, and the Herald Tribune as well as the LA Times (makes the Guardian look positively fascist!) when I am in that part of the world (at least 4 times a year).

    Your point?
     
  8. ---
     
  9. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.". ...

    George Orwell . 1984.

    Seems to be the mantra of the Pentagon and its tamed media cohorts.  
     
  10. I always found the BEANO a good read but I was only six.

    However it is more balanced than most of the shite I see in newspapers.

    Whatever newspaper

    As for what you read so what, do not judge by it.

    Only judge people if they burn it

    Chris
     
  11. Anyone who reads the Guardian is a Pinko.

    The Guardian is normally read by those who think everything in the country should be nationalised.

    Mind you, it's great for cleaning your shoes on though, and wrapping up fish and chips.  Then come to think of it, thats what all newspapers are only good for.  Oh and for lighting the fire if you have one in your house.

    Dont believe anything you read in the newspaper.  
     
  12. Seem to be going a bit off thread here.

    Can't fault the Guardian appointments pages though, money for old rope or what.  You should see the interview offers I've just had with my CV: minotry group under threat etc....

    re may post on the other thread below:


    Sounds like a great idea Mr President............. and shortly after that, there was a short war in Iraq  

    Rather that embeded media, I think we can assume that there is already draft doctrine for embedded SF in US media teams ??
     
  13. There was a very good program on BBC 2 last night all about the fact that the rescue was hyped up by the Pentagon and all the spin doctors.

    Also covered items about the media centre which was set up by the Brits and Septics.
     
  14. msr

    msr LE

  15. I'm sure in the fullness of time, the startling truth will be revealed in full technicolour, with original film insets to impart that 'real' feel.   Bruce Willis was the bloke who tripped over the M113 ramp, while saving Pte Meg Ryan.