Blair's Intelligence Lie Uncovered!

dathi1

So much for Colen Powel's evidence...it was backed up by in his words "a mighty fine document from our British allies" now seems to be a thesis made by a college student from Cambridge who compiled the thesis during the last gulf war in 91.



Nixon's mass homicide expert..He's happy anyway.

DiscoStu

ingsoc and minitru are doubleplusgood.

makes you wonder about what else they have fabricated.

dathi1

!turns out not only did they copy his thesis word for word but they also copied the spelling mistakes too

shotamoose

I think it's more accurate to call this 'plagiarism' rather than 'fabrication'. The author of the original stuff seems to think the British version is mostly accurate, though he says they inflated the numbers of Iraqi intelligence officers (might explain the claims of '20,000' Iraqis spying on the weapons inspectors) and changed certain words, such as 'opposition groups' to, er, 'terrorists'. Plus bits of it are twelve years out of date.

It's interesting, though, that the UK tried to pass this off as new intelligence when in fact it was cobbled together by civil servants from existing sources.

gandalf

Lads try and have links to your stories please.

Here is the link to the story on the BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm oh and heres Sky news article http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12241954,00.html

I think the word I'm looking for is pathetic. I wonder where Colin copied his stuff from

Gandalf.

bonkey

I picked it up on Ananova.

There's not much which can be said about this. There are only really two conclusions that I can see :

1) The US/UK were aware of this, and deliberately tried to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

2) The US/UK were not aware of this, and it was presented as a "fine document" in error.

So, either we have the US/UK administration lying to the public and the world in general about their proof, or all of their intelligence must immediately be re-examined and re-verified, as no-one should be able to have trust in it.

Of course, we will see neither of these things. We will hear "genuine mistake, but the rest of our stuff is honest...honest".

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

Yep...the Blair spin machine is a mighty force to be reckoned with and would put Bertie's Hire an American PR gang to shame.. The spin running now is : It was a mistake we're sorry...and wait for it... we should have credited Mr al-Marashi before publication!!!!! ?????

and that's it! Sky news reports on it like its alright...CH4 news makes a meal out of it.

Originally posted by gandalf
Lads try and have links to your stories please.

Here is the link to the story on the BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm oh and heres Sky news article http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12241954,00.html

I think the word I'm looking for is pathetic. I wonder where Colin copied his stuff from

Gandalf.

Gandalf, Does anyone have any idea, who this Mr Al-Mareshi is? other than that some years ago, he was a post grad student?
IE: what is his current field?
The reason I ask is, that in that BBC link above, he is quoted as saying:

"The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies. "The primary documents I used for this article are a collection of two sets of documents, one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq - around four million documents - as well as 300,000 documents left by Iraqi security services in Kuwait."

If he said that yesterday, is he still in the inteligence industry?
And what basis, does he have for telling BBC 2's newsnight that:

the government document was still accurate despite "a few minor cosmetic changes".

I'm assuming that in the current climate, no inteligence agency would allow sources to become public, even if it made their case difficult.
If Mr Al mareshi is involved currently in inteligence gathering of some kind, it would be advisable that he goes on holidays for a while with Salman Rushdie:eek:

Although, I find, this episode, sloppy, I can't come to as bad a conclusion as the rest of ye , unless I know,Mr Al-Mareshi's field.
I note from the Anova article that he is being referred to as Dr Al Mareshi.

Also, even though I regard this whole episode as sloppy, would it not be usual, but ( in hindsight sloppy) for a government agency to flesh out a document like this, with information in the public domain, rather than compromise security sources that may have more long term on-going strategic importance?
mm

shotamoose

Dr Al-Marashi works at the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies in California.

dathi1

They done a great job in the states by issuing that terror alert 80 mins after this story broke, the networks dropped it.....coincidence no way.

Vuk

Originally posted by dathi1
They done a great job in the states by issuing that terror alert 80 mins after this story broke, the networks dropped it.....coincidence no way.

This is what CNN had to say about the increased threat level.

Ashcroft cited recent arrests in Britain of terrorism suspects with the chemical agent ricin, in France with cyanide compounds and in Spain with other chemicals in announcing the higher threat level.

TBH, these so called threats were detected between 7th-31st Jan, so the US was a wee bit slow in elevating to condition Orange.
The timing for the Bush administration of course, couldn't be better, as you said Dathi......coincidence no way.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Vuk

Originally posted by daveirl
That's complete rubbish. The story broke about 24 hours before they raised the terror alert level.

The story broke, during the am hours EST, as the US was waking up, the alert level was raised during the afternoon of the same day, not 24 hours later.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

Man what your missing here is that the document released was suppost to be current intelligence. It is in the main derived from a document which was based on Gulf War era data.

This is not a accurate document of the present Iraqi situation. It shows a tardyness and a dishonesty that is at the heart of the US/UK arguement for this war.

If this document and that dodgy powerpoint presentation of Colin Powells are the best evidence that can be conjured up to justify killing of innocents then it speaks volumes for the so-called democratic countries of America and Britain. If the UN capitulates to the demands of these two Warmongering regimes then it is irrelevant in my eyes.

Gandalf.

dathi1

That's complete rubbish. The story broke about 24 hours before they raised the terror alert level.

The story went official and broke ON THE UK TV NETWORKS yesterday at 11:30....then the yanks woke up to a terror alert.

Powel's PowerPoint presentation was specifically for doubters in the US.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

you got up late 11:30 - 7:30 am......as above it broke across all networks By 11:30 When I seen it? then a terror alert was issued stateside which wiped it totally from breaking over there. They done a good job of it too. That code orange idea is brill.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PiE

Who cares what time it was issued at, fact of the matter is they lied and it hasn't been reported as such. This should be a national scandal (if life were Civ2, it'd be "Scandal in the Senate, Government Collapses!" or something), what we get is a minor blip on the road to war.

Originally posted by PiE
Who cares what time it was issued at, fact of the matter is they lied and it hasn't been reported as such. This should be a national scandal (if life were Civ2, it'd be "Scandal in the Senate, Government Collapses!" or something), what we get is a minor blip on the road to war.

Could you tell me where they lied please, and who are the "They" you are referring to??
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by PiE
Who cares what time it was issued at, fact of the matter is they lied and it hasn't been reported as such.

Exactly what was lied about, and by whom?

Remember that to tell a lie you must be aware that what you are saying is untrue.

The "admission" by the British is that they should have quoted the source. This is correct, but in no way implies that they deliberately withheld mentioning the source.

What is telling is that the statement about this seems to imply that the fact that the data is discussing information of a decade ago is not an issue to them. They seem to be indicating that this information is every bit as relevant to their argument as if it were dealing with the present day.

To a degree they have a point. Research a decade ago did raise issues. Some of those issues remain incompletely unresolved - or at least (in some cases) the western forces are unwilling to accept the explanations offered.

Thus, this research may still be relevant and valid. Alternately, it may be completely invalid...as no-one has come out and shown that these issues are or are not relevant today.

Or have they?

I notice that when this author said "its my work", a lot of people were willing to accept it. Now that he's saying "and much of it is still valid", people are calling his word into question.

This is an interesting issue. It shows that the pro-war argument may not be built on as strong a case as we would be led to believe. Alternately, it may simply show that the pro-war PR department dropped the ball, in allowing this document to be brought to the public's attention without properly explaining its relevance and significance.

Regardless of the outcome, I believe that it shows there is value in questioning the war. If nothing else, it forces a closer examination of all people on the issue - both the public, and (I believe) the various governments involved.

jc

gandalf

Bonkey you have answered your own question, they presented data that was over 10 years old as up to date intelligence.

They lied I don't care what way you all want to spin it !

Gandalf.

Originally posted by gandalf
Man what your missing here is that the document released was suppost to be current intelligence. It is in the main derived from a document which was based on Gulf War era data.

Gandalf.

I understand that, but given,what is at stake, for Blair in this,I am reckoning, that a mess such as this wasn't his intention.

My belief would be the document is meant to get a point across, as to how Sadams govt are operating, yet not comprimise security sources.
I don't believe for one minute,that Blair would go down this road at all, if he thought it wasn't the only road to go down.
IE: the road of, U.N 1441 , and at the same time , let Sadam see that the forces are there, if he continues to defy the U.N

Ok, it's costing billions to put the forces into the Middle East, but,that might be a small price to pay, if it helps prevent the proliferation of all sorts of nasty substances.
mm

dathi1

IE: the road of, U.N 1441 , and at the same time , let Sadam see that the forces are there, if he continues to defy the U.N

after 12 years of UN 1441 perhaps you're right.....doubt they will upset their Israeli colony by enforcing UN 242 now 36 years and going strong

Loomer

Shh... don't mention UN242 unless you want Mossad on your back

PiE

Originally posted by Man
Could you tell me where they lied please, and who are the "They" you are referring to??
mm

Originally posted by Bonkey
Exactly what was lied about, and by whom?

Remember that to tell a lie you must be aware that what you are saying is untrue

Who lied? The British Govt and considering the US Govt probably knew what was in the dossier, they did too. There's no way in hell I'm going to believe they weren't completely aware of what they were putting into the dossier and what they claimed as their own.

They've also "distorted" it to backup their claims that Hussein has expanded his forces. How on earth could he build his personal guard from 15,000 at the height of his military power (pre-Gulf War) to 40,000 now, after years of extensive sanctions and bombings?

Still though, the fact that it's been completely dropped from the news is what annoys me most.

shotamoose

Originally posted by PiE
Still though, the fact that it's been completely dropped from the news is what annoys me most.

I dunno what it was like in Ireland, but here in England they hardly shut up about it for at least a day. The plagiarism story totally obscured the actual contents of the dossier, in my experience. It certainly wasn't 'dropped'.

And anyway, it's untrue to say that the Govt claimed this as all their own work. They said it was 'drawn from various sources', which you could have interpreted as meaning it was their own work, and they weren't going to exactly rush to correct that judgement. They neglected to be totally honest, which is not to say that they tried to cover it up.

Originally posted by dathi1
after 12 years of UN 1441 perhaps you're right.....doubt they will upset their Israeli colony by enforcing UN 242 now 36 years and going strong

Hmmm, a bit out of date , that one, perhaps we should stay in 1967 altogether and roll back every thing thats happened since then:rolleyes:
mm

Loomer

"Hmmm, a bit out of date , that one, perhaps we should stay in 1967 altogether and roll back every thing thats happened since then
mm"

If your justifying Israels unprovoked first strike on Egypt, Syria and Jordan I assume the same applies for Saddam moving into Kuwait??

No, I don't see where you could think, I would be from that comment.
just reflecting on the fact that Israel has an embasy in Cairo, and your harping on about a war 36 years ago, even though in the meantime, they have restored friendly relations.
Time has moved on, the U.N are dealing with the threats of the here and now, threats which affect potentially on this occasion most of the Western world, ie the proliferation of dangerous substances and nuclear technologies to mad men
mm

PiE

Originally posted by shotamoose
I dunno what it was like in Ireland, but here in England they hardly shut up about it for at least a day. The plagiarism story totally obscured the actual contents of the dossier, in my experience. It certainly wasn't 'dropped'.

Well I had Sky News on TV for a good hour, hour and a half yesterday evening and not once did the topic come up.

Originally posted by shotamoose
...and they weren't going to exactly rush to correct that judgement. They neglected to be totally honest, which is not to say that they tried to cover it up.

Sorry but I would like to assume that the people who are voted into power in the worlds most powerful nations are honest, reliable people.

Maybe I'm just living in Neverland though.

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Bonkey you have answered your own question, they presented data that was over 10 years old as up to date intelligence.

Who claimed it was up to date? Powell claimed it was a "fine document". The British had prepared it as a dossier on Hussein - no time period specified anywhere I've seen.

Yes, it was referred to in a discussion as to why Saddam is a threat today, but lets be honest...most of why he's a threat today is because of stuff he did some number of years ago which hasnt been cleaned up yet.

They lied I don't care what way you all want to spin it !

I'm not trying to spin anything. Maybe you missed the bit where I'm against this war. However, I'm equally opposed to either side making mountains out of molehills.

You assert that someone claimed this document was current. Fine.

Was this individual aware of the fact that what they were saying was not true? If you cannot show this, then you cannot have any basis for calling this person a liar.

Unless of course, your word and personal belief is good enough...in which case we would have to ask what the hell anyone should be asking the US for proof for. Surely Dubya's word is also good enough?

So...if I'm only trying to spin things...maybe you can explain how you can show that someone was lying...and who that someone was.

jc

Loomer

Originally posted by Man
and your harping on about a war 36 years ago, even though in the meantime, they have restored friendly relations.

Well I hardly think I was harping on, but now I think I will.

http://axe.acadiau.ca/~043480m/UN242.htm

For your pleasure UN242 in its entirity

Please pay particular attention to following:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial
integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and
recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

Israel are in breach of UN242 for 36 years by not having seceeded from areas of Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights. They have recently threatened Nuclear strikes on countries in the region. Is Israel not outwardly guilty of acts which are the pretext for a war on Iraq.

Man, please don't accuse me of harping (or anything for that matter) until you can write a post or make a point with at least a reasonable amount of coherrence.

Meh

Originally posted by Loomer
http://axe.acadiau.ca/~043480m/UN242.htm

For your pleasure UN242 in its entirity

I refer you to http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-7.htm

Two chapters of the UN Charter clarify the powers of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter - that deals with "Pacific Resolution of Disputes" - are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute. UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.

The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter - that deal with "Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression." When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.

In other words, the scope of the UN resolutions on Iraq and its resolutions on Israel is entirely different.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by bonkey
Was this individual aware of the fact that what they were saying was not true? If you cannot show this, then you cannot have any basis for calling this person a liar.

If you are trying to prove a point, please do not use a logical fallacy to make it appear as if you have proved one, when, in fact, you haven't.
Regardless, I understand what you are saying; however you are under the impression that the people posting on this board about Blair "lying" actually care about whether Blair himself knew that the facts he was, indeed, lying. From what I have read, they don't. But this situation is still worrying, for other reasons.

The dossier was produced not so much as hard 'evidence', but mostly to garner support for the war, and maybe convince the undecided nations that war is the only logical path.

This is a pretty major event, I'm sure you'll agree. If the party line is to be believed, that Blair himself did not know the facts he was presenting were erroneous, at such a crucial stage is just as worrying as the thought of him knowing, and presenting them as up-to-date facts.

Originally posted by Loomer
Man, please don't accuse me of harping (or anything for that matter) until you can write a post or make a point with at least a reasonable amount of coherrence.

ooooh,:eek:
wheres the incoherence, in saying Israel and Egypt have diplomatic relations in response to you coming to Egypts defence, in a scenario from 35 years ago?
Anything else in particular where I am being incoherent??:rolleyes:
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
If you are trying to prove a point, please do not use a logical fallacy to make it appear as if you have proved one, when, in fact, you haven't.

Exactly where is the logical fallacy? I am not attempting to prove anything. I am asking how we can say these people are liars.

A lie is not simply something which is untrue, but something you know to be untrue yet attempt to pass as truth.

For anyone to be lying, they need to have known that they were not telling the truth. All I am asking for is the reasoning which has led gandalf to state that these people knew what they were saying was not true (or not the whole truth, if you'd like to include lies of omission).

This isnt spin. If gandalf wants to say that the origin of this document seriously undermines the western argument, I will agree with him. As I've said in my previous post, I am against this war.

However, just because I am against the war does not mean that I support every argument against the war, nor every action taken in protest.

however you are under the impression that the people posting on this board about Blair "lying" actually care about whether Blair himself knew that the facts he was, indeed, lying. From what I have read, they don't.

So, what you're in effect saying is that in all probability, Blair wasnt lying, (because he didnt know the origin of the document), but that doesnt matter to the people here.

Sorry if I dont agree. I'd imagine you'd find that libel laws dont agree with you either. Not likely to be an issue here, I admit, but the simple fact is that if you're trying to win an argument, you should try and do so on the facts, and not on made-up allegations.

Funny - thats the same argument I've applied to the west's actions. You know - show evidence to back up your claims.

But this situation is still worrying, for other reasons.

Of course it is. I've never doubted that. I just have an abiding strong dislike for the misuse fo the term "liar".

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
The dossier was produced not so much as hard 'evidence', but mostly to garner support for the war, and maybe convince the undecided nations that war is the only logical path.

This dosn't appear to make sense. If you are trying to convince someone that something is logical, then surely you need to use logical evidence such as 'hard' evidence, etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
This dosn't appear to make sense. If you are trying to convince someone that something is logical, then surely you need to use logical evidence such as 'hard' evidence, etc.

You *should*, but most of what is being waged at the moment is simply the media popularity war.

Every speech we see, every declaration of guilt or innocence, every word of rhetoric...none of it is aimed from one nation to another. It is simply each nation trying to win over the general public, for whoever does so will be the victor.

The US public (apparently) is split about 55/45 against the war. Europeans are even more anti-war. Now, while sometimes governments must take the hard choices, and act against public opinion for what they perceive as the greater good, they will always attempt to win over the public.

TAMITS (The Average Man in teh Street) couldnt give a hoot about the real complexities, or care about the solidity of the evidence. He will listen to his party/media presenter/columnist of choice, and more than likely take their side. So to win the public support war, you just have to keep the media bombarding them with pro-your-side information. It doesnt have to be proof....in fact, proof is probably too dull. Its soundbites which will win this war.

As long as the pro-war party can keep the protestors from growing too large in number, or too vociferous, and as long as nothing unexpected happens (like France, Germany, China or Russia stepping in between the US and Iraq and saying "do not cross this line"), I think its pretty safe to say that the US will get to go in. They should win - but again, the biggest risk they face is a loss of popular support before they can conclude. Everyone knows that the odds of the US suffering a military defeat are pretty slim at best.

So all that matters is keeping enough of Joe Q Public happy, and if not happy then quiet. Proof and evidence will not win this. Better PR will win this...and everything which says "Saddam is bad" can be spun or presented to strengthen their case...even if its written in crayons on the back page of a Noddy book....as long as the media covers it.

Hard evidence? I agree it would be nice to see....but thats just unlikely to happen.

jc

Clintons Cat

Slightly Offtopic,but apparently it is not only The intelligence services that are plagurising other peoples works,it appears Al-queedia have been at it as well

First of all, instructions about how to produce ricin have appeared in materials that were prepared and used to train al-Qa`ida terrorists. For example, in a chapter on assassinations from an undated al-Qa`ida military manual, 'I'alan al-Jihad 'ala al-Tawaghit al-Bilad [Declaration of Jihad Against the Country's Tyrants], a copy of which was seized in 2002 by the Manchester police, a number of recipes for making poisons are provided, including a method for manufacturing ricin. The manual instructs the reader to "soak...castor-oil plant seeds in about 10 ounces of water, adding two teaspoons of [lye]...." etc.[16] Curiously enough, the recipe described in this particular al-Qa`ida manual appears to have been translated nearly word-for-word from The Poisoner's Handbook (1988), an underground pamphlet that was originally published and distributed in the United States.[17]

Cite Source

dathi1

and going totally of topic check thishttp://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

The big question is: will Russia back down and back Bush?

Clintons Cat

Probally yes,After all Putin backed bush in Afganistan and even allowed US troops to be based upon Sovit soil in tjazakstan
I think Putin will follow a similar patern of first dragging his heels,make a few belicose statements then extract the most financial leverage possible with regards loan repayments then whilst international attention is diverted to iraq,extend his own "War On Terror" into Georgia from Chechenya

Clintons Cat

Swinging accidently back on topic,

Anyone who has been following the Shayler trial shouldnt be too suprised that the intelligence services apparently culled much of their information off of the internet,just as well that "al queedia has nukes" chain-letter came out after it was collated.Shayler