GameBanshee Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 028585.stm

My opening title says it all.

I would consider the source of the information. It's very disingenuous to spin what she likely went through like this.

Did the US do some marketing of the story? Yes. Is the story based on fact? Also yes.

So you believe the Iraqi story about the ambulance being shot at but not the US story?

Hmm, how interesting.

As Waverly says, everyone has a stake in spinning this story their way. But does it really matter?

Let’s take a look at the story critically just for a moment. Why are the only first-person sources used two doctors who have a stake in selling the idea that Lynch was not mistreated? Where is the Iraqi gentleman who was so appalled by her treatment that he sought out US soldiers to give them the location?

The standard issue M16 cannot easily be made to fire blanks. There is not enough back pressure to operate the automatic firing mechanism. For it to be done at all, the barrel would have to be capped with a device to trap the discharge. Spent blank casings are distinguishable from live. Have we seen even one?

Who in their right mind would send soldiers into any potentially hostile environment without live rounds? Even if the raid were choreographed, who would risk the very likely possibility that Iraqi soldiers would be present?

You take far left A and apply far left B and get BULL**** C.

It's too faulty to have any faith in it. the whole crap about the ambulence is hilarious.

Originally posted by Waverly
The standard issue M16 cannot easily be made to fire blanks. There is not enough back pressure to operate the automatic firing mechanism. For it to be done at all, the barrel would have to be capped with a device to trap the discharge. Spent blank casings are distinguishable from live. Have we seen even one?

Who in their right mind would send soldiers into any potentially hostile environment without live rounds? Even if the raid were choreographed, who would risk the very likely possibility that Iraqi soldiers would be present?

Excellent observation, Waverly, and very true. During training exercises where we would fire blank rounds from our M-16A2s, we had to apply a cap over the muzzle just as you describe. And just as well, a blank casing is indeed distinguishable from the casing of a live round. The blank's casing is crimped in a particular fashion to compensate for the different ballistics that the lack of a bullet creates.

check the date on the story 15 may. this story has been widely criticised and already dealt with. The BBC ended up trying to distance itself from 'dodgy' story. an over-zealous anti-war bloke decided to have a shot at the US, (interviewing some of the many special forces involved would have been nice)...however it is BOGUS

The BBC ended up trying to distance itself from 'dodgy' story.

Personally, I don't believe the story, either, but the BBC has not backed away from it, to date. They printed the Pentagon's rejection of their story, on the 20th. There's no language in the Pentagon story, which is available here, to indicate any distancing that I can see. The BBC news has a history of honestly admitting errors in a very open, upfront way in primetime when they make 'em, so I don't think this counts.

Originally posted by fable
The BBC ended up trying to distance itself from 'dodgy' story.

Personally, I don't believe the story, either, but the BBC has not backed away from it, to date. They printed the Pentagon's rejection of their story, on the 20th. There's no language in the Pentagon story, which is available here, to indicate any distancing that I can see. The BBC news has a history of honestly admitting errors in a very open, upfront way in primetime when they make 'em, so I don't think this counts.

thats what I was told about last week (this story has already been and gone)
The BBC has a history of putting a negative spin on things to do with the war and its so-called honesty about the war in iraq is quite debatable .....just ask the british navy who dumped it overboard or the bringing down of the sadam statue in baghdad 'as a another piece of vandalism' or regea omars classics like '1 thing is for certain the US are in for 1 hell of fight when the get to baghdad' and many more...

however if you feel otherwise then goto the BBC message boards and ask yourself, they would be happy to tell you whats going on.

thats what I was told about last week (this story has already been and gone)

The BBC has kept both their original piece and the Pentagon reply, which date from the 15th (which CM linked) and the 20th (which I linked). Since the Pentagon piece was displayed on the 20th and it's now the 23rd, that would give them 3 days to post and remove new material indicating a distancing of attitude from their expressed views. Can't say I've seen that happen, and I've been watching their website and listening to them closely. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, post it; I wouldn't mind seeing the old Beeb squirm.

In any case, the BBC News Service leaves up a visual archive of all their important feature material for over two years. You are welcome to peruse their archives for yourself, to determine the accuracy of this.

Originally posted by fable
thats what I was told about last week (this story has already been and gone)

The BBC has kept both their original piece and the Pentagon reply, which date from the 15th (which CM linked) and the 20th (which I linked). Since the Pentagon piece was displayed on the 20th and it's now the 23rd, that would give them 3 days to post and remove new material indicating a distancing of attitude from their expressed views. Can't say I've seen that happen, and I've been watching their website and listening to them closely. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, post it; I wouldn't mind seeing the old Beeb squirm.

In any case, the BBC News Service leaves up a visual archive of all their feature material (like everything related to this story) for over two years. You are welcome to peruse their archives for yourself, to determine the accuracy of this.

look why do you keep trying to argue everything with me (I do get the impression you want another big argument and you always trying to get the last word in), you didnt need to reply the way you did, nothing would have been lost or gained if you had just left it alone and checked it out for yourself with the BBC message board (link below). it would have solved the problem or any confusion you have over the matter(for the good or bad)

My reply was satisfactory and no more was needed (no one would have won or lost) . your reply was not rude but niggling for more ..why did you do this yet again.I did not join the forum to argue with 1 guy and 1 guy only. I dont post much but when I do you always seem to want to argue some point to a final conclusion, you and you alone (I dont remember asking for your opinion but you are more than willing to hunt for me). I would block you out but I cant your a mod

this forum has mainly spam and friendly threads with occasional serious/semi-serious threads(I only do this occasionally). if you want to have more debates on this topic (or any other) the BBC message board is far more suitable as it has a far greater range of people and viewpoints. You will find many people for and against your views and willing to back opinions with more evidence. have a look and join up for free.

it is at , you will get many people wanting to debate with you.
BBC
(it only operates over certain hours)



cheers

@at99, there's no reason to get upset. I've got nothing against you, nor does anybody else. The thing is, you didn't offer an opinion; you made a statement of fact. I pointed out an error in it. We've all been caught out being wrong, here, including me. We're corrected by other people; that's one of the best features about the more-or-less-serious threads on this board, IMO. Personally, I think it's a lot better than my going through life uttering the same mistakes over and over. I'd rather make new mistakes all the time, you see.

And I'm only half joking in that last line, too. I'd really rather have my mistakes pointed out to me, provided it's done in a non-condescending manner. If you'll look above, you'll see that I treat you just as you are, an equal, neither more nor less. I'm not trying to score off you. Couldn't be fairer than that.

One other thing, though. If by the BBC you mean the BBC World Service, it doesn't only operate over certain hours. It is a 24 hour service. However, they do shutdown and open up various shortwave frequencies to different global areas at different hours of the day, which is where the impression of being closed may come from. This website gives you direct links to a host of BBC networks with distinctive programming. The World Service is among them, and the broadcast is always live rather than pretaped and available "on demand." You can simply click to listen, which is great.

This gets into an area of some interest to me: international news broadcasts. One of the best grouped webistes is here, the World Radio Network. It provides mainly on demand, taped materials from roughly two dozen nations. (The number varies; new stations join, other pull out.) I first got involved in shortwave listening back in 1964, when my father bought me a cheapie Hallicrafters radio. The Internet offers many more opportunities to catch international stations in English, in good sound. It's really an amazing resource, and I don't think people who grew up only since its arrival can truly realize the vast amount of knowledge it contains (which isn't directed at you).

Originally posted by fable
@at99, there's no reason to get upset. I've got nothing against you, nor does anybody else. The thing is, you didn't offer an opinion; you made a statement of fact. I pointed out an error in it. We've all been caught out being wrong, here, including me. We're corrected by other people; that's one of the best features about the more-or-less-serious threads on this board, IMO. Personally, I think it's a lot better than my going through life uttering the same mistakes over and over. I'd rather make new mistakes all the time, you see.

And I'm only half joking in that last line, too. I'd really rather have my mistakes pointed out to me, provided it's done in a non-condescending manner. If you'll look above, you'll see that I treat you just as you are, an equal, neither more nor less. I'm not trying to score off you. Couldn't be fairer than that.

One other thing, though. If by the BBC you mean the BBC World Service, it doesn't only operate over certain hours. It is a 24 hour service. However, they do shutdown and open up various shortwave frequencies to different global areas at different hours of the day, which is where the impression of being closed may come from. This website gives you direct links to a host of BBC networks with distinctive programming. The World Service is among them, and the broadcast is always live rather than pretaped and available "on demand." You can simply click to listen, which is great.

This gets into an area of some interest to me: international news broadcasts. One of the best grouped webistes is here, the World Radio Network. It provides mainly on demand, taped materials from roughly two dozen nations. (The number varies; new stations join, other pull out.) I first got involved in shortwave listening back in 1964, when my father bought me a cheapie Hallicrafters radio. The Internet offers many more opportunities to catch international stations in English, in good sound. It's really an amazing resource, and I don't think people who grew up only since its arrival can truly realize the vast amount of knowledge it contains (which isn't directed at you).

I made my point because I did not want to argue, I have found recently better places to have a debate if this is what I want to do (here is fine occasionally but only a limited few ever get involved ). I got some Lynch info from an inside BBC source and I dont believe I am wrong but hey London is a quite a long way from me.

So I proposed the BBC message board as 1 good source, 'did you click the link?' it should goto the main BBC message board open to all which is only open for certain hours a day (the guardian is another message board).
The rules are more relaxed on discussion and there are many people posting, some I like and others are fruitloops.(I dont do this all the time). You can generally speak your mind there and have many people to post to. It is a quite a lot bigger in size than GB. Have a go there and you can argue and agree with many more people than here (no offence GB) from many different countries. GB has its good points but if you want to see peoples varied points of view from all over the world then BBC message board is for you.

Originally posted by at99
look why do you keep trying to argue everything with me (I do get the impression you want another big argument and you always trying to get the last word in), you didnt need to reply the way you did, nothing would have been lost or gained if you had just left it alone and checked it out for yourself with the BBC message board (link below). it would have solved the problem or any confusion you have over the matter(for the good or bad)

My reply was satisfactory and no more was needed (no one would have won or lost) . your reply was not rude but niggling for more ..why did you do this yet again.I did not join the forum to argue with 1 guy and 1 guy only. I dont post much but when I do you always seem to want to argue some point to a final conclusion, you and you alone (I dont remember asking for your opinion but you are more than willing to hunt for me). I would block you out but I cant your a mod

this forum has mainly spam and friendly threads with occasional serious/semi-serious threads(I only do this occasionally). if you want to have more debates on this topic (or any other) the BBC message board is far more suitable as it has a far greater range of people and viewpoints. You will find many people for and against your views and willing to back opinions with more evidence. have a look and join up for free.

it is at , you will get many people wanting to debate with you.
BBC
(it only operates over certain hours)



cheers

At99 if you don’t want people to reply to your posts go to another board - this is SYM – if people want to reply they can do so within the rules.

You might think that your word is final but please allow the rest of us to disagree.

I should also point out that we like fable's input here on this board and do not want to see him leave.

@Tom we dont just love fables posts, we respect them with a level above others.

@At99 While I do disagree at times with you, you naturally follow in a lot of ways the same view point I do. And at one time I attempted to help you with debate, the problem I have seen on SYM is you come across to brunt. Your posts assume your word is more valid than others, rather than just a statement. The reason why such people like fable posted in response to your post isn't anything personal, its just Fable is a Babylonion god whom's duties consist of wasting time online. In other words he doesnt "want" to respond to your post, he HAS too. Its an addiction, quite like everyone else here on sym.


Anyhow... *Smites at99 with ruler* *smites fable with a ruler* *smites himself a few times as well*

Originally posted by Tom
At99 if you don’t want people to reply to your posts go to another board - this is SYM – if people want to reply they can do so within the rules.

You might think that your word is final but please allow the rest of us to disagree.

I should also point out that we like fable's input here on this board and do not want to see him leave.

dont worry ,no one is forcing anyone to leave , I just gave another option for people. I do realize this place was not designed for explicit speak SYM on controversial topics, it was designed for spam mainly.

The amount of threads that are not spam (semi-spam)related are few are far between and GB does not have many people to post to on non-spam things. I think other boards eg BBC more appropriate as there are many people from many countries, relaxed rules and many genuine threads (not all serious), a large number of threads and posts per day and the big bonus it is less personal and there is little chance if any of getting in trouble with mods. GB still has a place , so I dont mean stop using this and start on another. you can quite easily use many forum boards without comprimise and many people do.

the GB forum the most sophisticated piece of software I have seen for its kind.

Originally posted by RandomThug
@Tom we dont just love fables posts, we respect them with a level above others.

@At99 While I do disagree at times with you, you naturally follow in a lot of ways the same view point I do. And at one time I attempted to help you with debate, the problem I have seen on SYM is you come across to brunt. Your posts assume your word is more valid than others, rather than just a statement. The reason why such people like fable posted in response to your post isn't anything personal, its just Fable is a Babylonion god whom's duties consist of wasting time online. In other words he doesnt "want" to respond to your post, he HAS too. Its an addiction, quite like everyone else here on sym.


Anyhow... *Smites at99 with ruler* *smites fable with a ruler* *smites himself a few times as well*

sorry I came across as too brunt.

Okay folks, I think things have been said already...

...now let's go back to regular programming.

@RT and Tom: Well said.

@at99: We don't want to come across like as if we're ganging up (or dogpiling as fable would say) on you. Just stick to the forum rules and respect each others' pov's and we'll all be fine.

Originally posted by at99
. I do realize this place was not designed for explicit speak SYM on controversial topics, it was designed for spam mainly.

Buck and I discussed this about two months ago, because SYM was created to hold both spam topics and more serious ones (like this). I had received quite a few PMs asking on the one hand if the number of serious subjects could be reduced, and on the other hand whether we could cut back on the number of spam subjects. There were advocates for both positions. We considered whether the forum should be split in two, but agreed in the end that it would create more headaches than it would solve.

The amount of threads that are not spam (semi-spam)related are few are far between and GB does not have many people to post to on non-spam things. I think other boards eg BBC more appropriate as there are many people from many countries...

SYMers have the right to challenge and correct the statement of misinformation. Simply put, the board's nature is not going to change on this. It is a forum that falls between the extremes of free-for-all flames on one hand, and willing tolerance of inaccuracy, on the other.

If someone misquotes US law, HLD will probably catch 'em. If someone misstates scientific developments or theory, CE will respond. (You've caught it from them, before. I've caught it from others. All of us who get involved in anything deeper than spam subjects have.) Several people here seem to know nearly as much about military units and war strategy as Jane's Defence Weekly. I could go on, but my point is that we're a lively, curious lot who won't settle for a statement's automatic truth, as given by anybody. We question facts, we argue opinions; we do it tactfully, but we enjoy it. It's who we are. For those who don't like that kind of thing, there are plenty of spam topics where people just shoot the breeze, and where facts never enter the front door.

This isn't new information. I count four previous times where other SYMers have pointed out to you in various threads that this is the way the forum operates. It won't be explained again, if it happens again.

One other thing. If you feel at any time that I (or anybody else) has stepped over the bounds of authority or taste or whatever, take it to PMs, so it doesn't interfere with a thread, and can be dealt with one-on-one. If that doesn't work, please take it straight to Buck. He's the final authority, not the boards, and has stepped in repeatedly before to correct problems when no other solution has worked. Hey, it's his board.