It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Jessica Lynch never beaten or abused.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 8 2003 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Heres an example from my own experience of manipulating memories or stories:

In my old Unit, there was a warrant officer the others were hell bent on ruining. Personal and professional conflicts be the reason, i wont go into details. Eventually, a sexual harrassment witch hunt came up against him. I remeber the incedent, we were in a small trailer in saudi, it was very cramped, hardly enough room for two people to move about, let alone about 6 of them. Physical contact could not be avoided, bumping and squeezing against other people was simply unavopidable. One soldier, noted that the Chiefs hand touched her ass, but didnt think anything of it. Chief was bent over the desk examining some maintainance reports from one of the launchers, and was reaching in his back pocket to get out his wallet that contained a couple numbers for the local civilian Raytheon team. the female in question was behind him facing the other direction, bent over a shelf sifting through a box of assorted bulbs that were on the shelf. She said here, chief, heres the bulb for the GPS light on launcher such and such, and put it out behind her in her hand without looking. he reached behind him to grab the bulb, not looking, and grabbed her ass. he immeidiately turned around, blushed, said sorry, took the bulb, then went back to looking at the report. She shrugged, went back to sifting through the bulbs. Now i saw pretty much the whole thing, it was totally unintentional. I smirked, as i was waiting on the keys to one of the Humvees to go drive a truckload of batteries downrange to replace on the generators. One of chiefs enemies, a certain nosy Politically correct wimp of a platoon seargant, saw it, frowned, glared at chief. An hour later he came back in the office and puleld the soldier aside. She told me later that he began to ask her, did chief touch you in a private spot? She said, well, yeah, by accident, he was grabbing a bulb from me, didnt look, and grabbed at my ass instead. She said he was obviously embarrassed by it, apologized, end of story. he had never done anything like that before, and had never bothered her about anything. The Platoon seargant insisted, drileld into her mind, yeah, chief sexually harrassed you. We need to file a report.

And thats what they did. I was called in, because I am female, and was there. What went on reminded me of films about mind control. When I told them it was an accident, it wasnt intentional, I told them what I saw. They would say things like, no, you mean chief did grab her bottom. Yes, thats what you saw. They sat there and basically, anytime i tried to get a word in edgewise, i had like 3 NCO's and two officers sitting there in my face telling me no, this is what happened, we know youre afraid to say anything because you like chief, but u did see that, ect ect ect. I sat dumbfounded. They basically drilled the hell out of me because i wasnt telling them what they wanted to hear, then put in thier report that i had saw the hand touching the butt, and not a word of what i said. They sat there and told me what they felt i was supposed to remeber. I sat there in stunned silence and nervoiusness as i realized if i were to hang onto what really happened, bad # would befall me.

Fact of the trailer story?

1. the trailer was tiny, six people crammed in, human contact unavoidable.
2. the female in question had an ass the size of a couch, i would have been surprised in that tiny space if he had managed NOT to touch her behemoth buttocks. (i had squeezed against them myself three times moving back and forth trying to get from desk to parts shelf, and no one jumped me for sexual misconduct)
3. Chief was embarrassed, very visibly and a bit surprised. His face showed he was shocked, the reddening of his cheeks and downcast glance and shaky stutter showed me he had obviously not expected it, and when he realized what he grabbed was NOT the GPS bulb, he was embarrassed, and he apologized.

But facts matter not, because in the end, those officers and NCOs had it out for the poor chief, and the truth doesnt matter, if they can get even a slight situation they can exploit to thier advantage, the truth gets thrown out and twisted into what they deem fit. And this includes sitting soldiers down and basically forcing them to remeber things they want you to remeber, and to forget what they really saw.

Why did I go into this long drawn out story? To show that the govornment, especuilly military, dont care about truth when a situation can be exploited to thier adavntage. Thus, Jessica. Laying in a hoispital bed, drugged out on painkillers, still dazed from the whole experience, and such officers and perons comming in her room and doing the same thing to her they did to me. In her drugged up state, she would be more suceptable to it, especially when a little force was used.

When i was drilled about the chief incedent, after about an hour of them in my face saying "no, this is what you saw, you arent remebering correctly" I sat there and finally said: i dont really remeber what happened, it was crowded, i didnt see much. I knew damn well what i saw, but knew it didnt matter. It was hot, my face flushed, i was nervous from this interrogation, and realized I couldnt win. I shook my head, faked memory loss, said I dunno, and then it ended. The only people i could talk to about it was fellow soldiers down at my rank, because i sure as hell didnt trust the leadership.

They could very well do the same to jessica, and with more success, since shes in bed, on meds, shaken, with injuries, they could very well convince her that she was brutalized, and her spend the rest of her life with false memories haunting her when there is no need. if they would do that to me for something as small as getting rid of a troublesome chief, why wouldnt they do the same to make the iraqis and muslims into animals, or to prove a case against women in the military, or any other agenda they can muster?

This doesn't surprise me at all It must have been shocking, strange and scary for you.

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 01:22 AM
It opened my mind to a new reality: truth is relative to those who have the power to shape it to thier needs. I really lost all respect for leaders, and began to distrust alot of things i had been told. If something like that can happen on a minor unit level personal level, I dont even think twice about what they can do to people involved in bigger things.

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
It opened my mind to a new reality: truth is relative to those who have the power to shape it to thier needs. I really lost all respect for leaders, and began to distrust alot of things i had been told. If something like that can happen on a minor unit level personal level, I dont even think twice about what they can do to people involved in bigger things.

I understand what you mean. The thoughts and ideas conceived by the controllers would be found disgusting by us.

The human is half intelligent being and half beast, they simply can't handle being in control.

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Info

I told you! You don't read, I already said I had been raped when I was younger. People on the ATS forums tend to have selective reading.

No we're just sick of your BS and juvenile arguments. Grow up pal and stop wasting bandwidth.

[Edited on 8-5-2003 by mad scientist]


posted on May, 8 2003 @ 04:49 AM
There are lots of traumatic things that can cause memory loss, car crashes, being chased around by someone with a big axe, etc.. So I really think we'll have to wait and see about Jessica Lynch. One thing we can all agree on though is that there is no evidence either way right now, it's all supposition. That didn't really matter to how it was represented in the media though, so the fact that Jessica Lynch was used as a major piece of propoganda by the pro-war side will still remain true regardless of what actually happened to her.

Skadi - Honestly, the UK media have shown Blair's speeches, they've interviewed many pro-war Americans, etc. And if anything the news interviewed more pro-war people than anti-war people, and did less belittling of the pro-war protagonists, than the anti-war protestors. That said, the extreme pro-war people say it's leftist, the extreme anti-war people say it's rightwing. The truth is there's a spectrum of media opinion in this country. The US simply does not have this spectrum of opinion in the media.

Name me a major news channel which is pro-war (easy), and a major news channel which is anti-war. In this country ITV are pro-war (although they're not FOX), and C4 are anti-war (although they're not the antithesis of FOX).

I understand your argument about the slant of the news and all the rest of it. The point is that in the UK there was definitely more anti-war public opinion before fighting started, because we saw both sides of the argument, and the more rational case was the anti-war one.

In the US you only saw the pro-war case, and a few people spoke out (like the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon) and got jumped on. People who asked Bush difficult questions were sent to the back of the room. That's not indicative of a spectrum of opinion...

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 07:23 AM
Major news station pro war- Fox News.

Major news stations anti-war- NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and radio network NPR(public funded)

Now, that doesn't mean they can be anti-American and come right out and bash the Armed forces but they do their share of skewing the information against the pres. But most members of these stations belong to the CFR and therefore try to make us see that we need to give up our sovereignty to the UN because its all one big plot to socialize the world behing the UN or later to be called NWO. But most of us ain't buying into it. Some are but most aren't.


posted on May, 8 2003 @ 08:50 AM
Hmmm, well I'd class that as the extremist right-wing American perspective.

CNN seemed pretty pro-war to me, perhaps they kept some journalistic integrity, but they didn't report a lot of things they could have. Certainly, it looks pretty pro-war when compared to the UK anti-war press. Anyone else?

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 10:06 AM
CNN is the most anti-Bush channel going!!! The old joke over here used to say it stood for the Clinton News Network because they were so liberal but some of the stories you would have them run have no way of being sustanciated as its hard to argue with seeing it as it happens.

All of these organizations had embedded reporters so there was really no way to go off the deep end with the propoganda because the other channels had the scoop too. They kinda had to hold within the bounderies of what was really happening because everyone had a camera on it. I guess thats one of the drawbacks of having live coverage from many angles. Its hard to get propoganda out without the next story showing actual footage disproving Iraq's minister of information telling them that coalition forces weren't near there and the next footage showed them cruising down the street within a kilometer of where he had just made the speech. See what I mean about such technology(camera phones and sat feeds) and freedom to report being the real spoilers of the propaganda machines.

Living here and being more or less a democrat but not an extreme liberal one, I have a pretty good view of all the US media's bias..(not to bragg but I get every channel I named) and may be in a better situation to make the distictions. I will admit that Fox News does really support the conservatives but until they came along, most of the conservative voice was talk radio.


posted on May, 8 2003 @ 10:25 AM
Over here the running joke is that CNN stands for censored news network.

I wonder what you'd think if you read some of the more liberal UK news sources. Perhaps they wouldn't seem any more liberal to you than CNN, but I somehow doubt it.

Try or and see if those seem more or less liberal than the liberal US news sources. During the war they were pretty scathing about things.

Oh, and embedded reporters hardly make propoganda more difficult. The press are kept where the soldiers want them, if there's any messy bits the soldiers just don't let the journalists get near. Having non-embedded reporters is the only way to ensure journalistic integrity.

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 12:10 PM
Theres another Bias, what you view as liberal and what we view as liberal. Your version of liberal borders on communism to us, as far as you are concerned, we dont even have a left wing over here.

Needless to say, yes, we were given alot more than you think as far as difference of opinions. How many local new stations did you see over in UK? Local news is what most people key into. There are more big networks, other than ABC, FOX, CNN, ect that are regional. Here in the northwest, there is a swing towards the left here, and here, anti war sentiment ran high, despite the fact seattle area is home to three of the biggest bases left on the west coast: Mc Chord Airbase, FT Lewis, and Everett naval station. The regional network, northwest cable news channel, gave many anti war slants. they showed and interviewed protesters marching down the streets of seattle damn near every weekend before and during the war. The news papers were full of commentaries and editorials and interviews of opinions of people around here who were against the war, and why. They also interviewed military families, veterans, and people who had been there. So, both sides were given. Key being LOCAL news.the big networks more or less spend thier time reporting the big stuff going on in iraq. When there in an incedent involving shooting between iraqis and american soldiers, they have always reported both versions of the story, from the iraqis side and the soldiers side. So yes, while FOX might be rabidly pro bush pro war, there are countless other networks that havent censored anything, and even lean towards an anti state. CNN broadcasting the american soldiers taping up and bagging the iraqis shows its not as censored as you think, otherwise, it wouldnt have gotten shown.

Youre media, as i said, has its own censorship. Unless you look beyond it, youll never know what youre not being told. American media does contain its bias, for example, youll not get much useful 9/11 info from it, nor will you get any anti israeli slants, because the media seems to be sympathetic to israel over here.

I can name several biases and how misinformed you folks are over there. I have a friend in the UK im going to visit in a week. When he came over his first time, he was actually surprised. he told me the media has basically shown americans as gun happy fat ass degenerates that will shoot each other over a parking spot, that it was wild west, cities overrun rampantly by gangs. He learned that tho we might honk, and flip each other off for taking a coveted place to park, pulling out the gun and blowing each other to bits pretty much doesnt happen but once in a blue moon. he saw no one packing guns, no drivebys, and tho we have a fair share of porkers, most people he saw were of reasonable weight. I saw the same crap in germany on thier tv, where they like to overblow issues in america like guns, school shootings, gangs, drugs, and poverty. the homeless lepers he expected to see turned out to be scruffy, unwashed drunks, who simply didnt want to get off the bottle, get into rehab, and straighten thier life, but they certainly werent crippled dying starving lepers like he expected.

Yes, you folks have the Bias bug, like every single country ive been too and seen the news: germany, Holland, France, Saudi, and asian news channels which we got by satelite there.


posted on May, 8 2003 @ 12:26 PM
I'm not saying that the UK news media isn't biased. All I'm saying is that the UK news media shows a larger variety of biases than the mainstream US media. I've heard that the West Coast is fairly different to the rest of the US. A lot of people say San Francisco is quite like London, it's certainly the only place in the US I'd consider moving to. I've been to New Orleans in the past, and I understand that Americans aren't all obese gung-ho gun freaks. But you have your share.

All I'm trying to say is that from what I've seen, the mainstream US media shows a lower variety of biases than the UK media. Newspapers like the Mirror and the Sun have large proportions of the market, and yet have radically different views. In the US the difference between the major news channels viewpoints is smaller. There is less variety, more tendancy to not question the government, etc...

That said, it's clear that the average UK news source is probably further to the left than US news sources. But I'd argue that's just because the UK news sources have a greater range of biases from right-wing to left-wing, while the US just have right-wing to not-so-right-wing.

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 02:45 PM
It's actually pretty different in many parts of the country...especially north vs south, west vs. east coast, etc. and then there's the midwest... Extremely different viewpoints, attitudes, cultures, etc. in these areas...

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 11:02 PM
Thank you MS its apparent I had gone over the head of Info's queries.

Like religion, politics is a subject, which requires one to look at all potential sources and read between the lines.

One who is not capable of that is the same reasons why the term moron, still exists with respect to a diagnostic/clinical classification.

My impression at this point is that every interested party is trying very hard to present the idea that justification exist for its cause.

Nonetheless, the bottom line in respect to how the masses are responding is still an issue.

For the most part what Iraqi's are doing today is addressing the issue of unmarked graves.

And doing very little in respect to blaming the US for why those graves have no names. By far the responsibility of making what was occurring is clear; it is first the fault of the Arab press and secondary to that is the UN.

[Edited on 9-5-2003 by Toltec]

posted on May, 8 2003 @ 11:06 PM
I would still like to hear what the young lady has to say.
Until she makes a statement, noone will know.

posted on May, 9 2003 @ 01:59 AM
Well, Dom, like you said, the west coast is very different from the east, north different from the south, ect. As has been mentioned, the US is a huge country, with several media centers, each with its own bias. Theres actualy a broader view of opinion over here than you would think. Its whats filtered over your way is a different matter.

If anything, we question and distrust our govornment far more over here that over there. Hence, the nonstop fight between people and govornment in the US, from battling over legal cases and legislation, to websites such as this. The media has on many cases questioned govornment policies and such. I have seen it quite frequently. I have seen individual americans get pissy and all up in arms over many things, from taxes to seatbelt laws, some of which still get contested. In Europe, I simply saw people who accepted new forms of govornment control and regulation with si little as a squeak of protest. Here, everyday someone is yelling and screaming about something.

The issue here is not bias, but failure of reporting those smaller news tidbits by the wider media. Many stories which become local news are usually ignored by national news, stories of signifigance. But with a country this huge with so many people, so many areas, its a little hard to cover them all. And when u consider everything that goes on in the world, and the fact americans have little interest except in local affairs, the media is left with little else to report unless it is of major concern to all.

And remeber, the vast majority of Americans do support the war, so there really arent many here who dont, so you wont hear as many anti war opinions as you will pro.


posted on May, 9 2003 @ 05:31 AM
Well there you've hit on something. It probably is true that there are less anti-government people over here. But I think a large part of that is down to our government usually being more transparent. GW2 is a significant counter-example to my statement, but on the whole UK politicians rarely go against the majority of public opinion, and the media makes sure they don't because it's balanced and presents both sides of every argument.

Perhaps regional news in the US is better than national news. I don't know, haven't watched it. But I think the fact that the US population supported this war, even before fighting began, is a good indication that they didn't understand the issues, and didn't question the statements of Powell and GWB about WMD's and terrorist links... Right now the US is being run by a small clique of right-wingers, and I simply don't see much evidence of opposition to them. That scares me.

posted on May, 9 2003 @ 07:55 AM
Definetly , I like regional news better. In fact my local news is all I really watch. Once the network news comes on, I turn it to a the Discovery Ch or the History Ch. or a good sitcom or most of the and go do something productive.

I get most of my world news from the net and radio. Every now and then I watch Fox News but I hate the national network's anchors.

posted on May, 9 2003 @ 11:53 AM
Actually, dom, the american public support the war for different reasons. They dont care about the issues, its a matter of unfinished business for them. We failed to get rid of saddam in the last war. That really pissed people off. For the most part, they understand that iraq has oil, that this is a very profitable venture for certain people. With the state of the economy, right now, all people can think about is getting back to a normal level of economics. As far as the american public is concerned, terrorism isnt really on thier minds much, hell, most the people i know off arent even aware of the terror threat alert system, they simply arent as worried about it as the media thinks. They ARE very worried about SARS tho. Both sides were presented here as well. They knew about the problems that could arise from the war. They knew about the incresed threat of terror and making new enemies. They also are aware of the reduced opinion of america in the worlds eye. But remeber, americans dont really care what the world thinks of them. They have always been under the impression that the world hates em no matter what we do, so as far as not going to war because the world opposes it, that doesnt even figure into thier concerns.

One reason Americans wanted Saddam out? prevention. Rememeber, America was dragged into two world wars that had nothing to do with us. That really pissed us off the first time, second time, it made us a world power. Americans train of thought was: take saddam out before he becomes a threat. Like Europe should have done to Hitler. Americans figure if we knock Saddam off now, thats one possible mideast conflict less than before. And yes, while Saddam was no threat to US, he still could prove to be a problem locally, which could drag us into a war of another conflict. In a desperate stand as his country crumbled, Saddam could have made some sort of last ditch act of revenge on israel, which would have given israel reason to go and rampage over the middle east.

I myself dont support the war for other reasons. I too do not care what the world thinks of the US, as far as Im concerned, just about anti American arguement ive heard is pretty damn petty and ridiculous, and throught my travels, have pretty much learned that people are petty. My reasons for opposing the conflict: we shouldnt be wasting money that we really need to save and reduce our debt. I also oppose anything that is beneficial to israel, which this conflict is. There is also the problem of the credibility of Bush. Of course, the only benefit I see of the war is knocking France, germany, and Russia right back in thier perspective places. But thats about it.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in