← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Marcus Porcius Cato
Thread ID: 8645 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2003-08-01
2003-08-01 00:07 | User Profile
When the Jessica Lynch agit prop broke a few months ago, Robert Frenz predicted two things: 1) Her heroics were entirely illusory, and her ineptitude may have caused the deaths of real soldiers, and 2) She was the camp pump for every surly mestizo bandido, boot lipped brudda, and Budda head this side of the turd world.
Looks like the old codger was right - it appears that GI Jane only kicks ass in the febrile fantasies of lesbian jewesses and "Please discipline me Mistress Xena" gentile girly boys.
[url=http://]http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm.../27/wjess27.xml[/url]
The real hero behind the 'bravery' of Private Jessica By Julian Coman (Filed: 27/07/2003)
America's most famous woman soldier owes her fame to a case of mistaken identity, reports Julian Coman in Washington
As she watched Private Jessica Lynch's emotional homecoming on television last week, Arlene Walters struggled to suppress her growing anger.
For millions of Americans, Pte Lynch's first faltering steps in her home town of Elizabeth, West Virginia, were a moment of high emotion, a happy ending to one of the darkest incidents of the Iraq war.
For Mrs Walters, however, the standing ovation and praise lavished on the young woman soldier, who was captured by Iraqi forces and later freed in a dramatic American raid, served only to highlight the contrasting treatment of her dead son, who fought in the same unit.
It was, fellow soldiers have told her, Sgt Donald Walters who performed many of the heroics attributed to Pte Lynch in the fanfare of publicity designed to lift the nation's morale, and Sgt Walters who was killed after mounting a lone stand against the Iraqis who ambushed their convoy of maintenance vehicles near Nasiriyah.
Yet few, if any, of the Americans watching Pte Lynch's homecoming last week have even heard her son's name. "The military tell us that everyone who was in her unit was a hero," Mrs Walters told The Telegraph. "In fact they have singled out Jessica Lynch as the hero, and they are not giving the recognition to my son that he deserves.
"The fighter that they thought was Jessica Lynch was Donald. When he was found he had two stab wounds in the abdomen, and he'd been shot once in the right leg and twice in the back. And he'd emptied his rounds of ammunition. Just like they said Jessica had done at first."
Sgt Walters, a 33-year-old military cook from Oregon, blond and slim but not a photogenic female warrior, had been serving with the ill-fated 507th Maintenance Unit, in which Jessica Lynch was a supply clerk.
In the days following the elaborately staged rescue of Pte Lynch from her hospital ward on April 1, a blizzard of American media reports told how the soldier had exhausted all her ammunition before capture, in an isolated and brave "fight to the death".
They suggested that it was only after a prolonged battle, in which she was shot and stabbed, that she was eventually taken prisoner. In all, 11 soldiers were killed and six captured. It subsequently emerged, however, that the young soldier's rifle had jammed and her injuries were caused by her lorry colliding with another vehicle as the convoy came under attack.
Last week, with no fanfare, the US Army released a detailed report into the incident which makes it clear that a lone American fighter did, indeed, hold out against the Iraqis - but that the soldier was not Pte Lynch. It says that following the ambush, Sgt Walters may have been left behind, hiding beside a disabled tractor-trailer, as Iraqi troops closed in. The report confirms that he died of wounds identical to those first attributed to Pte Lynch.
"There is some information to suggest that a US soldier, that could have been Walters, fought his way south of Highway 16 towards a canal and was killed in action. Sgt Walters was in fact killed at some point during this portion of the attack. The circumstances of his death cannot be conclusively determined."
Fellow soldiers who witnessed the ambush have been less guarded. "One told me that if I read reports about a brave female soldier fighting, those reports were actually about Don," said Mrs Walters.
"The information about what had happened had been taken by the military from intercepted Iraqi signals, and the gender had gotten mixed up. He was certain that the early reports had mixed up Jessica and Don."
Mrs Walters and her husband are now struggling to persuade the US military to acknowledge fully their son's bravery. Sgt Walters has been posthumously awarded the bronze medal, but his relatives argue that higher honours are deserved. The army says the investigation into the incident is now closed.
"I just can't imagine him being left out there in the desert alone," said Mrs Walters, who is still haunted by images of her son's lone stand.
"I'm not trying to take anything away from Jessica. We just want Don to get the credit he is entitled to for his bravery."
She has her own theories about the Army's reluctance to give him due credit. "Perhaps the army don't want to admit to the fact that he was left behind in the desert to fight alone," she said. "It isn't a good news story."
2003-08-01 00:19 | User Profile
The propaganda machine is manufacturing heroes for the cattle to worship.
2003-08-01 00:37 | User Profile
I knew right from the beginning that the Lynch story was BS! Just the way they originally talked about it sounded like it was total nonsense.
"Oh she was tougher than nails". When somebody is actually tortured, you don't go bragging about it like that!! Many POWs that were actually tortured are very sensitive about people talking about their experiances like that, and also feel "survivor's guilt" as in "why did I survive yet the others died?" type thinking. So boasting about this "tougher than nails" stuff is highly inappropiate I must say in real instances of capture and torture. The US army didn't talk like this when they refered to POWs in Japanese and/or German camps during WW2.
"She fired her weapons untill it was out of ammo". Well when you're in a combat situation thats what you're supposed to do! Thats not heroism, its common sense on the battlefield. But they can't even prove Lynch fired her weapon at all!
So lynch is nowhere near a hero! Certainly doesn't deserve a website with forums to discuss the latest news about her [url=http://www.jessica-lynch.com]http://www.jessica-lynch.com[/url]
A good book to read about so-called "women warriors" past and present is Martin Van Crevald's "Men, Women, and War". Crevald refutes and/or puts into context instances were women fought in combat. Bascially women have not really contributed much in warfare!
2003-08-01 04:32 | User Profile
Uh huh. But we're talking about Jessica Lynch, the public relations warrior, here. Dragging in Eleanor of Aquitaine only proves you come armed with a silly-ass, non-germane Wrigley's Fun Fact for every occasion.
If this were basketball, Raina, you'd be a "chucker". Try taking it to the actual hoop for a change.
2003-08-01 05:08 | User Profile
Sorry Raina but Marcus is correct. GI Jane does primarily exist in the movies and fantasies of feminists.
Those Female military leaders, yeah they primarily relied on their MALE military advisors! Same thing with almost any female ruler, they rely heavily on their male advisors when concerning affairs of state. This is true to this day(Marghret Thatcher was advised by males during the Falklands War). The examples you give are mostly of women LEADING troops into battle, not actually fighting the battles. There is a difference.
Women disgusing themselves as men to serve in the army was primarily a fantasy of male soldiers. If females did do that, they made very little impact since they would not be able to advance significantly through the ranks(or risk being discovered). SO if anything, all these female soldiers really did was make male soldiers fight harder(so as not to be outdone by a woman in disguise).
It should also be mentioned that when women actually DID fight in combat, their causality rates were extremly higher than among male units.
So women soldiers are not really anything to truely brag about. It should be noted that most militaries in the world that do allow large numbers of women in are usually countries that face no real threat to their national security. Yes even the US Army. We may face Osama Bin Laden, but Al-Qaida is not powerful enough to threaten the very existance of the USA by military means. Nor does Canada(which allows women in combat roles) face any foe capable of threatening its very existance as a nation! So Western militaries allow females to join simply because they can get away and deeply threaten that nation's existance(although this does often lead to the downgrading of quality of the armed forces).
In countries/societies that are threatened with its very existance by military means you don't find that many women in the military. Israel is not the exception, for they're primarily in support roles. Yet in places were war is part of everyday life, you find that these societies will prefer to arm 12 year old boys rather than arm females. Since they're fighting for their very existance, they don't have time to experiment with feminist style BS.
2003-08-01 05:25 | User Profile
Funny - I laughed reading that heading. Irreverence isn't irreverent unless it leaves a big nasty gash in a sacred cow, after all; and all of our mooing holies are icons of the Propaphere (strong women, black super-intellects, benevolent/ brillliant Jews, sacred homosexuals, 'race is a myth', 'diversity is our greatest strength', etc).
Bashing Nazis and racists might be fun and will certainly make you popular but is otherwise safe as milk. You won't get any hate mail or be forced to 'apologize' on bended knee for lampooning angry white men. It ain't satire if it gets a chuckle out of Alan Dershowitz....only if it prompts him into speed-typing an angry letter to the editor.
2003-08-01 12:49 | User Profile
**Funny, I fail to see where the mass media promotes feminist ideals. I do see 'Men & Women are Different!' specials with John Stossel. Or 'Is Feminism Dead?' articles in Newsweek. Dworkinism is the only 'feminism' promoted by the mass media. & any sane person can see that this jumble of puritanical authoritarian BS is not feminist by any reasonable definition of the term. **
I heard people on tv trying to use Lynch's "example" to prove that women should be able to play with men in the PGA tournaments(during the whole Anika Sorenson media hype).
**I'll admit, I also laughed reading the heading. Jessica Lynch is a sacred cow in dire need of butchering (figuratively speaking of course). **
Try telling that to the people at the forum at [url=http://www.jessica-lynch.com/]http://www.jessica-lynch.com/[/url]. Yes there are actually forums were you can discuss pretty much anything about Jessica lynch, you can even discuss the latest news about her. How Pathetic!!
2003-08-01 14:00 | User Profile
Why not let women with play with men in the PGA tournaments. If we're as weak & clumsy as you say, the men should win every time. What do you have to fear?
Because that's really being unfair to women. Need we forget Anika herself didn't even make the cut. So basically you would have women trying out and not making the cut against men. So having two leagues is the better option, unless you really want to see the number of women in sports dramatically decrease by having them compete with men.
** Making a heroine out of Lynch doesn't reflect feminist influence. It reflects the current regime's need to manufacture heroism where none exists. **
Actually in many ways it does reflect feminist influence. I don't find it a concidence that the man doesn't get reconition while Lynch gets everything! I'm almost certain that if the Pentagon didn't try to award Lynch something or give her some BS attention, the feminists would be on their asses in a second!
Feminists are desperate to try to prove that women can be as effective in combat as men, yet time and time again they are refuted. They even spread myths about warrior women of history, yet they blow their involvement way out of proportion as I explained earlier.
I didn't even talk about the favorite Feminist lie about the Amazons of Greek mythology. If you really look at the Greek stories, they're actually making fun of the notion of female warriors. Basically in the stories, the Amazons are usually armed with Persian like weapons and armour(which the Greeks considered inferior) and are always defeated by a male hero. So these were not glamorous women warriors as you would see on "Xena: Warrior Princess".
Not only that, the supposed location of the Amazons often changed as the influnence of Greek culture spread with the conquests of Alexander the Great, which gives further credience that the Amazons were primarily myth. Many of the Greek authors who wrote done the legends about Amazons doubted their existance.
The so-called recent discoveries in Russia don't prove anything really. They found like at most a few female skeletons with weaponry buried with them. At most this proves that a small minority of women in this tribe died in combat(as often happens in history) but does not prove that some kind race of matriarchal warrior women ever existed!
So there you have it! It should be noted that most women who do join the military don't actually want to fight in combat.
2003-08-01 14:40 | User Profile
** It's not being unfair to the many women who want to join the league. Again, why are you opposed to letting them try... unless you have something to fear?**
Because women lack the strength to effectively compete with men. Thats like putting a lightweight against a national heavyweight campion in a boxing match. Whose most likely going to win?
So by having a womens league, women actually have a chance of winning. Most women who do try to play with men are often just out there to try to prove a point.
** Let me get this straight:
Your first claim is that women have almost never been in combat.
Your second claim is that "feminists are desperate to try to prove that women can be as effective in combat as men, yet time and time again they are refuted."
Which is it? They can't both be true. **
There have been rare cases that women have actually in been combat, but the record is not good. When women actually did engage in combat, the causualty rates among women were greater than among men. So basically women only really served the military well in suicide missions, but yet any idiot can conduct those kind of missions. This is especially true for these female Palestinian suicide bombers.
** Certainly even you have to admit that some women would be effective in combat. Why not allow them to fight? **
Because it has been shown that women simply do perform as well as men do, women will usually lower morale among troops, and will often just cause pain in the ass like this [url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030611-120105-9326r.htm]incident[/url]. This is only a fraction of the negative consequences of having women in the military(other than in support roles).
Having women in the military is governed more by PC propaganda as opposed to actual military effectiveness.
** In my experience, men who are afraid of strong women tend to be life's losers. This isn't from some PC stereotype, but my personal observations in life. **
And women who often advocate for their involvement in the military are often those who know absolutely nothing about military matters, no military experiance, and often have no interest in joining the military. Plus they seem to lack knowledge on a number of other issues, but oh well thats my just observation of life.
If what you said is true, why is it that militaries in even communist countries(which are so staunch on womens' rights) primarily run and maintained by men?
The Soviet army for example had very few women among its ranks, and the supposed story that females fought during WW2 is largely false. Yes there were female units in the Red Army, but they served primarily a propaganda role. They did experiment with a female fighter unit in the air force, but cut the program due to the large number of causalties(they might as well just trained them for suicide missions).
The same was true for the China's Peoples Liberation Army. Mao was a strong advocate for womens equality, yet most women in the PLA served propaganda purposes as opposed to actual combat effectiveness. Same thing with the Korean People's Army.
Women did fight among Tito's communist partisans during WW2, but only because they lacked enough manpower to hold out against the Germans and Chetnik forces. Yet once the tide turn in favor of the Communists, women were sent back behind the front lines.
So even the Communists see that women and the military don't mix, despite what their ideology might say! Communist militaries rely on conscription, yet it is men that are conscripted, not women. Female military involvement is strickly voluntary, which in many ways prove that they're not needed, since male conscription will often supply the necessary number of personell to effectively maintain the military.
So yes if you want to continue this discussion, be my guest, I got more where that came from.
2003-08-01 14:44 | User Profile
Requiring the same high standards for men and women in the military would basically be a de facto ban against women in combat, which is why the feminists and diversity fetishists did away with equal high standards and I support returning to those standards.
In my experience, men who are afraid of strong women tend to be life's losers.
Fear has nothing to do with the fact that women are physically less suitable for combat (besides the fact that many men are probably afraid that the women will easily die) Even the diversity fetishists know this fact, which is why they had to lower the standards for women. This is why they have to lie and make a modern mythology about Lynch. Besides, are you trying to insinuate that female strength can only be physical? I'm sure the men here think quite positively about women who are strong of mind, character, and spirit. Unfortunately for Xena lovers, however, you don't get through combat with strength of mind, character, and spirit alone.
In my experience, women who need to constantly "prove" (no matter how pathetic the example, they'll use it) that they are no different than men and can do everything just as well as men are the insecure ones.
2003-08-01 18:42 | User Profile
Curie isn't the only example of the ongoing falsification of history that is being committed to make some groups feel good. It's all well and good, until those groups start getting uppity and making wrong conclusions.
2003-08-01 20:37 | User Profile
** I always have the desire to throttle people who argue 'But what's the harm in it? Why not let her give it a try'. Because some (better qualified) male has been trying for 10 years to make the tournament, only to have his dreams shattered at the last minute by having to give up his rightfully deserved spot to this female? **
No offense, but you seem to like to throttle people on anything. I agree that Anika displaced a better qualified male player for this PR stunt. But if a LPGA champ can't make the cut for the PGA, if male soldiers seem to out perform their female counter-parts in military service(more on this later), and a host of other incidents, I have to ask where are these super-women you're talking about?
Most of the small number of women who actually do show aggressivenes anywhere near equal to men are often violent psychopaths and/or suffer from mental disorders, according to medical studies.
So where are the non-mentally ill superwomen. Either: -They don't exist for the most part - they're a small insigificant minority of the female population -they've all managed to hide while only appearing on the silver screen
Now back to the military issue. Studies done by the US Army have shown women on average lack the necessary weight, height, muscles, and fat amount to perform effectively on the battlefield. Studies done with West Point cadets showed that female cadets suffered from ten times as many stress fractures as men. In co-ed PT, the male cadets were so far ahead of the female cadets that they couldn't even see each other.
I have another question, why is it that over the past 30 years, the large influx of women in certain careers often resulted in both the drop in the pay and the social prestige of those careers? This was documented for 14 seperate professions from pharmacy, public relations, banking, system analysis, and insurance sales. Even with the large influx of women into the workforce, men still pretty much dominate it. This is true even in traditional feminine careers like in education and welfare. The wage gap hardly closed between the sexes, and when it did it was primarily because of reduce in pay for men.
This has especially been true with the influx of women into government. I find it interesting and almost no accident that of the European nations with the largest number of women in their parliaments(Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, and Austria) most belong to the EU. Gee women are most prominent is those states that are losing their national soverignty.
Go WOMYN! :lol: BTW, why do feminists misspell women?
Note: If you are going to reply to any of this, please do better than simply claim we're just weak men who are insecure around women. Alright?
2003-08-01 20:43 | User Profile
So where are the non-mentally ill superwomen.
Training for "World's Strongest Woman" competitions, which still need to be gender-segregated because the "World's Strongest Men" would beat them all. :P
2003-08-01 21:03 | User Profile
Another name feminists like to throw around as proof that women are men's equals (this time in philosophy and science rather than politics) is Hypatia. Hypatia's main achievement was serving as a harlot to great Alexandrian (male) mathematicians and philosophers in exchange for taking credit for their ideas. If these are the posterchildren for female equality, the pattern and message seems to be quite clear.
Is this the very same Hypatia who, in Fifth-Century Alexandria, was siezed at the behest of the pious S. Cyril by a throng of over zealous Christians who held her down while they used oyster shells to scrape the flesh from her bones? Ouch! That's gotta hurt more than going down on a shaved, er, ah, harrumph, wheat field.
2003-08-01 21:11 | User Profile
**Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century was overall a rather dry and boring book, but it did have a few bright spots. One was his amusing observation that "curiously enough, Marie Curie's alleged 'genius' seemed to mysteriously vanish immediately after Pierre's death." I won't say that prostitution was involved here as in the case of Hypatia and Cleopatra, but Rosenberg's observation does give an idea as to which Curie did the heavy mental lifting. **
Sigh! The more things change, the more they remain the same. It seems that we have come full circle with the Jessica Lynch charade - for what has to be the gazillionth revolution. A man needs a woman like a faggot needs a bung hole - or a bicycle, or sumthin like dat.
2003-08-02 00:32 | User Profile
** ** So where are the non-mentally ill superwomen. **
Training for "World's Strongest Woman" competitions, which still need to be gender-segregated because the "World's Strongest Men" would beat them all. **
Yeah really, except that these women used tons of steroids in order to be strong like that. Womens' bodies simply were not built for that kind of muscle!