Blair's Intelligence Lie Uncovered!

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