Woman's war story unravels

Submitted by digitalhermit on Tue, 2007-03-27 10:58

An Editor's Note confirms that pretty much everything a woman said about her tour of duty was a fabrication:

"The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.

... Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did."

Notice the editor's presumption that the woman did not blatantly lie, no that's not possible. She must just have been confused about the truth. Poor thing!

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

anthony writes "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261400,00.html

"The article was about women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse some say they endured, and their struggles in reclaiming their pre-war lives. But one of the women profiled, who said she'd been raped twice and suffered brain damage when a roadside bomb exploded next to her Humvee, was never actually IN Iraq. She lied. And, there was no roadside bomb. Readers were left to wonder if there'd been any sexual assaults.""

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2007-03-27 23:16

This sounds very much like the standard feminist canard that a man's constitutional and other rights should go directly in the toilet whenever a woman feels raped. I mean, it's not like women have been proven to be lying 41% of the time when they make accusations of rape or anything, according to data compiled by members of the law enforcement profession.

Women lie and are excused for it on a routine basis. That's what makes false accusations and tear-jerkers like this such powerful weapons in the hands of women. Women rarely engage directly in aggression - they typically do it by proxy. As for their usual lie-and-benefit technique, women are almost never punished for it, it inevitably results in terrible damage to the targets of their aggression (or great advantages for the liar), and the visible damage is done by the hands of a third party. If there were no risk to men, we might do it too - it would be foolish not to take advantage of such a powerful tool with little or no risks involved.

Sadly, our culture only punishes liars when they have a penis so a vagina remains the one universal get-out-of-responsibility-free card. When that changes, we'll be a big step closer to real equality. Naturally feminists will do everything they can to prevent this from ever happening. The ability to lie with impunity and never worry about the consequences - all while realizing tremendous personal gain - is a fantastic gender privilege, and I can see why they'd be opposed to giving it up.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by RandomMan on Thu, 2007-03-29 04:25