|Comments on Pvt Jessica Lynch...||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 6:42 AM
|Scuttlebut has it she recieved some of her injuries while being hung upside down, naked, tortured and sexually assaulted.
Should women go into battle? I vote no...not because I want women to be held back, have less opportunity, but, because I hold them up higher than men. We men fight to keep the women from being subjected to this, we lay our lives on the line to protect the women from atrocities like this. Men and women are different, and, this is one situation where women can best help by doing other things to support the men.
Apr 7, 2003 6:59 AM
|she'd kick your arse if she read your post
|one problem with women in combat...||mohair_chair|
Apr 7, 2003 7:36 AM
|They seem to lose their sense of fashion!
Disclaimer: Sarcasm intended. Tongue firmly in cheek. Women can do whatever they want and I'm all for it.
Apr 7, 2003 8:55 AM
|Let's see, you claim to hold women up higher than men, but you have no problem spreading contemptuous rumors that could ruin her life. For your sake, I hope you were in a drunken stupor when you went on your little morning rant.
I think your post is a prime candidate for censoring. What say Doug?
Apr 7, 2003 9:41 AM
|I have read the same rumors as posted by Clyde. If they are in print (I'll find a link asap), then they can be mentioned on this board - I think without recrimination.
I generally agree that women maybe..shouldn't be on the front lines. In Gulf War I, the female prisoners were sexually assaulted (http://www.cmrlink.org/PeopleintheNews.asp?docID=93 ) so there's no reason to believe these Iraqi scumballs wouldn't do it again. It is the worst kind of torture. Yes, we can tell the female soldiers of the risk. But no-one ever believes it will happen to them.
Disclaimer: I am the father of two little girls..so maybe I identify with the situation more than non-parents. And I believe my daughters can achieve, accomplish, and do anything they want and anything a man can do. But, I don't want them to be a soldier.... or anything else dangerous.
|Oh yeah, just what we need||Hoopes of glory|
Apr 7, 2003 9:46 AM
|the words "Doug" and "censoring" in the same post.
I thought that thinking amongst us were holding that his "appointment" was a late April 1 joke anyway?...
|on the contrary||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 9:51 AM
|Those rumours are on national tv...and, if it happened to her, does not make her any less of a person, in fact, for standing up to it, more a person to be admired.|
|I don't see how it violates the Guidelines||DougSloan|
Apr 7, 2003 9:55 AM
|Here are the Guidelines:
"RoadbikeREVIEW.com Message Board Posting Guidelines"
Our mission is to help cycling enthusiasts and foster a healthy community. The message boards are the core of our community. As a result, we would appreciate it if people read and abide by these guidelines.
The RoadbikeREVIEW staff monitors the message boards, removing inappropriate content. The purpose of these guidelines is to explain what kind of messages are "inappropriate," and therefore will be deleted. We are explaining these guidelines beforehand, so if a message is removed everyone will understand why it was removed. In general, we err on the side of leaving messages up. The entire site is premised on sharing product information, so as one might imagine we are strong proponents of free speech. That being said, here are some specific reasons why we remove certain messages:
The message insults or degrades another member of the community.
The message contains profanity, offensive language, or racial epithets.
The message is an advertisement or spam.
The message contains obscene or pornographic images/photos/text/videos.
The message promotes illegal activity (at our discretion).
In addition to #3 above, please do not post Classified Ads/Want Ads/Trade Ads in the message board forum. Please post these in our Classifieds Section.
In addition, as a courtesy to your fellow forum members, please follow these guidelines:
Do not post race spoilers in the General Forum
Do not post off-topic, socio-political posts in the General Forum (these should be posted in the Non-Cycling Discussion Forum)
Unfortunately we must reserve the right to remove messages. However, we truly love this community, so we will only remove any given message if we judge that it's in the best interest of the community. Please feel free to ask questions or direct comments to us.
|re: Comments on Pvt Jessica Lynch...||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 7, 2003 9:55 AM
|I would like to see a source on that. I could not find anything other than assumptions on her being raped in a google search. Remember they were all saying she had been shot and stabbed and those reports were false. I think there is good reason to fear the worst here though. As far as rape goes, that should be Jessica Lynch's decision to go public on it.
I have dated a couple of rape. THey both felt shame in revealing it to me. They both seemed to be waiting for me to break up with them after they told me. It is something that follows you the rest of your life and more traumatic than most of us could imagine.
If she was raped & PFC Lynch wants it made public let her tell the world, otherwise keep it classified. It should be her decision and not some officer or reporter's.
|Really, really good point! nm||Jon Billheimer|
Apr 7, 2003 10:27 AM
|I disagree . . .||ms|
Apr 7, 2003 10:40 AM
|Although I strongly believe that women who are raped in the ordinary course of things (not that rape should be anything "ordinary"), should not be outed publicly, I believe that the treatment that coalition troops receive, including rape, is something that the citizens of the coalition countries have a right to know. The rape of a coalition prisoner is relevant in several respects, including: (1) it informs the coalition countries about the character of our opponents; (2) it is valuable information for the propoganda war that is as important as the real war (i.e., I am sure that if a coalition soldier rapes an Iraqi, Al-Jezaara will be ready to publicize it); (3) it is an important consideration in the inevitable debate about the role of women in the military (my personal opinion is that if women are willing to take the risks of war, including the rape of women, then they should be able to serve in the same capacities as men). When men and women join the military, they give up many rights that civilians enjoy. When a civilian woman is raped that is a private matter that deserves protection from publicity. When a soldier is raped, that is a public matter and the soldier's right to privacy is something that arguably should give way to the public's right to know what the enemy is doing. Now, I would prefer that such information be given without the soldier's identity, if possible. But, where the identity of the soldier inevitably is part of the info (i.e., Lynch is the only woman that was in captivity that fits the description), the info should take precedence over her privacy.|
|That's an easy position to take............||Len J|
Apr 7, 2003 10:47 AM
|when it's not your daughter.
I don't think that wether or not Pfc Lynch was raped or not is going to change one persons mind about the Hussain regeime.
I too have experience with rape victims & believe that Lynch has given enough to this effort. Give her some damn privacy.
|woudn't "torture" be a sufficient description? nm||DougSloan|
Apr 7, 2003 10:50 AM
|Yes and No||ms|
Apr 7, 2003 11:14 AM
|I probably would assume that torture of a woman would include rape. But, torture does not necessarily include rape. Although torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention, I could make an argument that torture could be a legitimate military tool (e.g., torture a prisoner to obtain information about the prisoner's unit, objectives, etc.). I can see no legitimate reason for raping a prisoner of war other than to degrade her. I was not in favor of this war. But, now that we (i.e., the U.S.) are in it, we have to win the war -- including the propaganda war that will shape public opinion long after the shooting is over. The raping of a soldier, as opposed to plain vanilla torture, is a very relevant event. I don't disagree that it would be better if the rape could be severed from the identity of the victim. But, at least for the present, there are not enough prisoners so that the information can be given in a way that does not identify the victim (e.g., out of 100 women prisoners, 10 were raped).|
|who in the h*ll....||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 11:19 AM
|would apply a social stigma to a woman who was raped while a prisoner of war? Geesh...if it happened, and we dont know, she is a hero, nothing to be ashamed of..anybody who would apply a social stigma to any woman whom is raped is a poor human being,much less to one in a case such as this.|
|who in the h*ll....||Alpedhuez55|
Apr 7, 2003 4:14 PM
|The sad thing is there are people who apply a social stigma to rape victims. Those people are scum but they do exist. I do not know if being a POW will be enough to overcome that. Hopefully, if she was raped, she will be strong enough to not let this effect her.
I just think the decision should be hers if she wants to go public with it. I am sure as soon as she gets back there will be book and movie offers. If she wants to tell her story, let her. If she wants to finish her service and go to college, let her do that too.
There is more than enough evidence of war crimes. There are supposedly multiple executions. Adding rape to it is not going to make too much difference.
|The stigma.............||Len J|
Apr 8, 2003 4:40 AM
|is in the mind of the person raped. Studies support that most rape victims feel an intense amount of shame over the incident. I'm not saying they should I'm saying they do feel this. I am also suggesting that, recognizing this, we give her some room (that is assuming that she was, which seems to be all rumor & inuendo at this point).
Apr 8, 2003 8:22 AM
|-exactly- she coincidentally has all her major bones broken? Without other substantial trauma? This strongly suggests that they were deliberately broken.
While her "girl-next-door" looks tug at my heartstrings, imagine what a group of US rednecks would do if a bunch of Iraqis were captured invading the US? Male or female, they'd be lucky to escape with the fate that she did.
There is an international tortue-survivors treatment center in this city, and I've worked personally (in the mental health system) with a bunch of survivors. Torture is torture, and as such is traumatic beyond belief- regardless of rape (and there are things much worse than rape, if you care to believe that).
|Thank you f-sweep||Starliner|
Apr 8, 2003 9:18 AM
|i Torture is torture, and as such is traumatic beyond belief- regardless of rape (and there are things much worse than rape, if you care to believe that).
Thanks you for grounding this discussion back down to earth.
|His point was is should be kept classified.||Kristin|
Apr 7, 2003 12:09 PM
|How do you and benefit from knowing this about poor Jessica? It only could serve to deepen her wounds. Whoever reported this, whether it be NBC or from Clydes imagination, it was in bad taste to do so.|
|read my darn post...||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 12:19 PM
|scuttlebut = rumor|
|Oh, I thought that scuttlebut was a perverse version of basketball||Kristin|
Apr 7, 2003 12:23 PM
|used by gym teachers to humiliate prepubescent boys. Now your post makes perfect sense!|
Apr 7, 2003 12:26 PM
|You have no source to cite in your post, therefore you made it up, therefore you may have committed libel, therefore you may be called to answer for you crime. Smarten up.|
|I personally would be sickened if the news reported this.||aeon|
Apr 7, 2003 6:19 PM
|It might be in the interests of military intelligence to know the personal details, but it is NOT the right of the public (the armchair generals) to hear such personal details if the subject does not wish to divulve them.
1. It is sufficient to say that an incident of rape was committed by an enemy force. It is not necessary to include a name.
2. That's pretty sick, hawking images or stories of a rape victim to demonize an entire nation/army/man/whatever. You honestly want to plaster this poor girl's pain out for the whole country to see on the six o'clock news, with or without her consent? If it were me, and some random person walked up on the street to comment about my abuse, I'd punch them.
3. The debate does not rest on this specific example, so the details of the example should not be needed. Giving an "I told you so" or whatever upon hearing this would be just as wrong as reporting it in the first place. Maybe more so.
Apr 7, 2003 12:07 PM
|However, I think the Clyde is just posting more of the meaningless drivel that he hears on the Larry King show. I'm sick of these posts. Clyde, dude, some of the stuff you post is just in bad taste and not hardly thought out.|
Apr 7, 2003 12:14 PM
|I never watch Larry King..find him to be a joke as an interviewer...if you will calm down and read my orginal post, it in no way is derogatory of Pvt Lynch. I find her admirable. The purpose of my post, if you will read it calmly, is a statement of why I dont want women in combat. I respect and care for women too much to want them to go through that.|
|Where specifically did you hear those exact details?||Kristin|
Apr 7, 2003 12:20 PM
|I am perfectly calm and was when I read you post. I can't believe that you don't understand what was inappropriate about your post. But I'm not going to try to explain it, I doubt it would have an impact.|
|Where specifically did you hear those exact details?||ClydeTri|
Apr 7, 2003 12:25 PM
|it was on one of the major cable outlets, either CNN or FOX..I do know it wasnt Larry King as I never watch him...cant stand him. It was a show with "talking heads"..they detailed the attrocities from Gulf War I and said that their sources were saying that hers may have come from similiar circumstances. Ankles arent broken normally when being taken prisoner. Again I state, she is a hero. I do believe if such things happened they need to be made public, people need to know the animals we are fighting over there. (not all iraqi's, but those who do such things, which are the ones in power)|
|Clyde, put yourself in her shoes||Spoiler|
Apr 7, 2003 1:44 PM
|Suppose some Republican Guard with an Arabic lisp decided to interrogate you up the keister. Would you want your name to be known world-wide for this?
Better yet, suppose it never happened, but it was made into a RUMOR that was spread by boneheads on a cycling discussion board. Would you feel better knowing that it was just scuttlebutt?
|Rumors or not she was treated differently. She was not killed...||Bruno S|
Apr 7, 2003 10:56 AM
|It seems everybody else on her unit was killed after capture. So either for pity or evil she was kept alive.|
|Neither were five other members of her unit who are now PWs||mohair_chair|
Apr 7, 2003 11:30 AM
|Spc.Edgar Adan Hernandez,21,of Mission,Texas;
Spc.Joseph Neal Hudson,23,of Alamogordo,N.M.;
Spc.Shoshana Nyree Johnson,30,of El Paso;
Pfc.Patrick Wayne Miller,23,of Walter,Kan.;
Sgt.James Joseph Riley,31,of Pennsauken,N.J.
Johnson is a woman, by the way.
|Call me a cheuvinist but||purplepaul|
Apr 7, 2003 3:05 PM
|I've never understood why, out of all the heinous crimes out there, rape entitles the victim to absolute anonymity. The purpose, I suppose, was to encourage women to come forward and report it when they otherwise would not due to shame or embarrassment. But I don't see how it is constitutional to keep the accuser's identity secret while publishing the accused's name.
Now, I can understand that no one who is raped would want their misfortune published. But what about that protestor who fell off the Golden Gate Bridge? Surely they would rather not have that published either.
My point is, rape is just another awful crime. But as long as it is treated differently from all other crimes, there will be a stigma attached to it and questions raised regarding the truthfulness of the accuser(since many have turned out to be using their special status to ruin some guy's life).
So, to all those who want women to be treated the same in the military as men, what are your feelings about this? Men get raped too, you know.
|Okay, you're a cheuvinist||Kristin|
Apr 8, 2003 6:12 AM
|Personally, I would have gone with insensitive jerk, but why quibble over words?|
|Sorry, that was kind of a low blow||Kristin|
Apr 8, 2003 6:42 AM
|Something about your post is really unsettling me, but it took me a little while to put my finger on it. Here's my issue. Your post seems to indicate that you have some sort of anger towards the fact that women who are raped get to remain annonymous while no one else does. And I think that your frustration is valid. If I were a man accused falsely of rape, public knowledge of that accusation could bring me a lot of shame and disgrace. Not to mention, people might still be leary of me, even after I was prooven innocent. So I agree with you, that there is a damaging and unfair double-standard at work.
Now when seeking a solution to the problem, you can go in a couple different directions. Your solution seems to be that we should strip the raped woman of her annynimity in order level the playing field. In my opinion, that's a disturbing and cold position to take. Why not take the position that more people should gain annynimity? For instance, the police could not reveal the name of persons arrested for a crimes that they have not yet been convicted of.
|Sorry, that was kind of a low blow||purplepaul|
Apr 8, 2003 9:09 AM
|I'm not suggesting anything, merely exploring why, of all crimes, rape rates this protection. This is a serious departure from the way crimes are treated and, while it may have its valid reasons for so being, I still wonder why other crimes are not treated thusly.
And, again, since the constitution makes it clear that the accused must know who their accuser is, I don't know how it's constitutional to shield their identity. Doing so certainly makes it easier for rape to be used as a weapon against men, and that can't be in the best interest of our country.
What you are suggesting, while quite logical, would require the overhaul of our entire criminal justice system. Many times, crimes are proven or disproven because witnesses come forward after hearing about the case in the media. If that was eliminated, a good source of information would not be available.
|I don't follow||Kristin|
Apr 8, 2003 9:46 AM
|First of all. What other crimes allows for the public announcement of the vitims full names?? I don't know of any at all. So no one on that level is being treated differently. The girl who fell off the bridge, by the way, died an accidental death. No crimes were committed by anyone involved. So how can you compare that to the plight of a rape victim? Also, I think you need to be careful about trying to put the victim and the criminal in the same camp. They should each have a whole set of different rules regarding their rights.|
|I don't follow||purplepaul|
Apr 8, 2003 5:29 PM
|Every other crime allows for the publication of the victim's name and, usually, address. Rape shield laws are in direct contravention of our constitution and our values. If a person is wronged, the courts allow for them to have a public forum in which the merits of their argument can be heard. Except for rape.
I realize the person who fell off the bridge did not commit a crime. My point was there are millions of things that get published in the paper every day that one could find humiliating, but they are still allowed. Why not rape? Surely being mugged is humiliating. Being beaten into unconsciousness might be humiliating for some. What is it about rape that gives it a priviledge that victims of other violent crimes cannot enjoy?
And don't for a minute think I don't care about the victims of rape. If convicted, I would have no problem with the perpetrator being castrated and sentenced to life in prison.
But, apropo the discussion below about women wanting equality, I wonder how this is consistent with that.
Apr 8, 2003 9:27 AM
|Agree- police and media should not reveal any names prior to conviction, and in event of acquittal.|| |