BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq

Subject: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 07:37 AM

This is quite revealing about the nature of the "intelligence" information on Iraq being presented as "fact" and "Truth" to the public by the British and US governments, isn't it?

From BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2735031.stm


A dossier of evidence against Iraq is "solid", Downing Street has insisted after allegations that it included plagiarised material that was 12 years out of date.
The UK intelligence document released on Monday was designed to help win over sceptics by detailing Saddam Hussein's efforts to hide weapons of mass destruction.

But it emerged that some of the document was copied from three different articles, including one written by a postgraduate student.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Peg
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 09:23 AM

wow! Very interesting article. The implications are staggering. Next we'll find outthat videotaped footage was doctored somehow...

Are they so desperate to wage this war that no one wants, that's they'll spin a bunch of lies to make us believe it's justified?

And to be so sloppy about it? Do they think we don't care?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 09:59 AM

Well Hot Damn! I had part of a Masters thesis used in a similar fashion without attribution back in 98. My paper was on the conduct of mass casualty drills in a WMD environment in Washingtom DC, including a study of the disbursion effect of biological plume agents by helicopters being used in the casualty evacuation. Wait 'til the Brit papers hear this...

But I am suprised that the papers made no comment on whether the data was true, which in typical Brit tabloid fashion, made no difference at all...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 10:03 AM

Nobody disputes whether the material was true, it is the fact that it was out of date (up to 12 years) and that they seemed to have no independent sources on Iraq, but were relying on material already in the public domain.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:29 AM

To really pass judgement one would have to read the "dossier". Interstingly from the section of the document "plagiarised" from a paper written by a post-graduate student, this is what the author has to say about it:

<<"Mr Al-Marashi told the BBC Two Newsnight programme the government document was still accurate despite "a few minor cosmetic changes".

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.">>

So Bagpuss, not only true but accurate. As to being 12 years out of date and having no independent sources on Iraq. I think of quite a number of instances where information from 12 years ago is still perfectly relevant and little or no information would be contained that could possibly used in identifying any sources within Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,Gareth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:11 PM

Well - We could take the attitude that somne folks are so anti Bush, and pro Saddam that they will clutch at any straw to support the murderous regime in Iraq.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM

Are you folks aware this was was planned long before the Bush junta ever took office?:

Regime Change

Various pretexts have been presented for the war...'Hussein is a dictator', 'Hussein is a lunatic', 'He tried to kill my daddy', 'We must destroy the country in order to save it', etc. All Bushit. The U.S. is the hammer of the U.N., and Iraq has the natural resources the U.N. needs. Oil. None of this oil will benefit the U.S. Our petrol (gasoline) prices will remain the same or go up, and 85% of our industry has been shifted overseas in the past 30 years, so our industry won't benefit...except for the oilfield industries and armaments industries, both of which are Bush-owned. The Bush family is making some money off this, but mainly they'll be fighting the war for the U.N. and Bush # 1's vision of 'the new world order'. AND to keep our attention diverted from their murders of Sept. 11 and the subsequent police state that was set up in America in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:03 PM

Enough with the Bush Junta barbara streisand. You've been reading too much Le Carre.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:07 PM

One more thing...

Gareth- I would tend to agree with what you said with one minor adjustment. I think some people are just so anti-Bush (leaving Hussein aside entirely) that they will stand against ANYTHING the man does or proposes on principle.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:12 PM

The document in the article GUEST linked to above is (according to the article) "entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century". It "was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)", and it "was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff)".

I thought this quote from the document was pretty interesting:

"New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Gareth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:24 PM

Beccy - On reflection, and I have no love for Bush anf his fundementaly corupt Government, I think you point is more apt than mine.

Tho in Europe matters are clouded by the rampant "Anti Americanism" so many still show.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:32 PM

Reuter's is also carrying the story today, and the allegations of plaguerism are solid and verifiable.

The issue here is not whether the informaiton is true, but rather that the so-called "intelligence"sources of the UK in this matter is really someone surfing the web and copying and pasting articles, typos and all.

Yet, we are supposed to take all this "secret intelligence" the US and UK governments are bandying about as truth?

There's a disconnect when our conspiracy-theory GUEST swears eerything he reads on a web page is true, and he is rightfully criticized for that assumption, while governments who are spending billions in tax dollars to find intelligence do the same thing... and we're supposed to believe THEM?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:36 PM

Beccy...I hate Bill Clinton, too. He was appointed president by Bush Sr. While he was Governor of Arkansas, Clinton murdered in order to protect Bush # 1's CIA cocaine drop-point at the airfield in Mena, Arkansas. Clinton was such a good soldier, Bush # 1 groomed him to run as the Democratic Presidential candidate, then Bush # 1 cut his own throat in the election. Lost intentionally. We then had 8 years of continued globalist expansion under 'the opposition'. Such mis-direction. I detest both parties in the U.S...just a two-headed snake which is NOT serving American interests.

And the bit in the article about 'genotypes'...the U.S. possesses bioweapons that can target racial groups. Can seek out and attack people depending on whether they have specific sequences of DNA. The other governments of the world know this. The recent champagne-popping over 'mapping the human genome' was for the cameras only. The U.S. has had race-specific bioweapons for decades. Probably used some of them too, in remote places. Our govt is in the hands of the CIA now, and they are capable of anything.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:42 PM

Blurb on Race-Specific Weapons

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:03 PM

As I was saying...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:15 PM

Did you read either of those two articles, Nicole?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:16 PM

Sorry. I meant to ask if you read either of the GUEST's last two links.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,smug guest
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:17 PM

When you submit your thesis again, run a spell-check on disbursion.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:34 PM

Yes, Carol. The first has been known for some time, although depending on who you read about it from it's either a visionary statement of the future or a conpiracy.

The second is an example of our conspiracy guest saying the such and such exists, then pointing to an article which only says that it's possible something could be theoretically developed. Also not a surprise to anyone who understands biology that genetic engineering could devise weapons based around specific strands of DNA -- except that there are no specific DNA markers for "race" since race is a social construct, not a genetic one. There's no "black person" gene, and any racial weapon is bound to be inaccurate.

My original point, however, was that just 'cause a web page says so, doesn't mean it's true. If you think a collection of psuedo-journalistic web sites are proof that some of these claims is good evidence, then that's one thing. But personally, I think it's weak and ridiculous -- and just as ridiculous for a government to present a bunch of plaguerized web pages as intelligence data and expect their citizens to die in a war over it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:48 PM

Like I've been saying all along, a lot of "tax bucks" are going into the massive PR campaign. Just wish they'd spend more money with the factual side of the deal and less with the selling side.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:20 PM

I don't disagree with you, Nicole. I was just wondering if anyone was reading the GUEST's links.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:25 PM

CarolC Please! Have you read GUEST comments of 2/7 at 2:36 PM?

He's saying in effect, that the votes that you so passionately cast for Clinton were a Bush plot in which Bush lost intentionally. This is a person, who when called a mentally abhorrent and morally debased fool, asks for a spell check on the words... You and LH should try and understand the demented state of this individual, and to the exent he/she crosses into a thread conversation, reject it in simple unambiguous terms and move on. Mental deviates can still type into a computer; thats why there are investigators working the internet to catch child pornographers. GUEST has broken no laws that I am aware of, but he must be corrected when his illness becomes manifest.

And Bobert, you're not helping...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:35 PM

Claymore, did you read my 07 Feb 03 - 04:25 PM post?

I know about people like this GUEST. And I also know about the slavish devotion people like yourself have to your own particular point of view. I don't see much difference, myself, except for the fact that your position is sanctified by the Bush administration. I don't see either positions as having any basis in any sort of rational thinking. I wouldn't have said anything, but you brought it up.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:46 PM

If anybody wants to read the entire report from the Project for the New American Century, rather than getting exerpts from biased news media (IMHO, ALL news media is biased in one way or another),it is here. I'm sure we all understand that, outside of government employees, the largest group of employers within the beltway may be the "think tanks", which come from all places in the political spectrum, not to mention left field and the asteroid belt.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: NicoleC
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 04:49 PM

Sometimes I read 'em Carol, if they aren't obviously from a unreputable source, or if I'm bored at work waiting for my computer to finish compiling code or something.

Claymore, I think Carol just sunk your battleship! :)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 05:40 PM

Geez Claymore...

I have a different world view, that's all. In the past year and a half I've studied geopolitics and don't like what I've discovered. I've been misled all my life, and now I finally see things plainly. Or more plainly than I did.

My understanding of the world now is this...there is a global crime syndicate which has been forming for the past 500 or so years. Just as the global bankers consolidated 100 years ago, the other major financial entities are consolidating now. Sicilian mafia, Russian mafia, banking conglomerates, corporate conglomerates, nouveau riche trillionaires, old-money trillionaires, decadent old royal families. Really not that many people...a couple hundred control most of the money in the world.

So these people have seen it is in their interest to conquer the world and then divide it up between themselves and live happily ever after in a neo-feudal society. And they have set into motion a series of events which will lead to another Great Depression so the average indebted person will lose everything and they, the wealthy, can buy up the real estate for pennies on the dollar. And while this is happening, plagues and wars and famines will reduce the earth's population by 80-90%, as the U.N. has been telling us for years would happen.

THAT is the current state of the world. And yes, race-specific bio weapons exist. Putin for one knows this and he is terrified. He knows about America's arsenal of the weapons, and about America's Aurora space plane, and he believes America has a fleet of the planes and space platforms with microwave cannons, etc. AND, Putin has a LOT of nukes. But will Bush microwave all of Russia before they can launch the nukes? That's for Vladimir and George to work out.

Meanwhile, I study, and things get grimmer with each article I read. A lot of you folks think my posts have a valid point or two, then I trail off into gibberish. Possibly that's because YOU have read the articles I draw from at my starting point, but you HAVEN'T read subsequent articles...the ones that feed my continued line of reasoning. This race-specific blurb, for example...y'all can't even cope with that. You deny it exists, etc. Fine. Don't follow it up. But don't chastise me for mentioning it. It DAMN SURE is a factor in Putin's thinking, and in Blair's and in Bush's.

All we have here is a failure to communicate. I know...for an absolute fact...there is a global crime syndicate getting ready to sweep us out of the way like dust. And knowing that, I read the news differently than you do, and my concerns are different than yours. That's all. Sure I'm a mental deviate, Claymore, because I WANT TO LOOK THE BASTARDS WHO ARE GOING TO KILL ME IN THE EYE, while it seems to be human nature lately to just look the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 06:12 PM

Oh...and the reference to the 1992 election. In 1990, Bush # 1 took an unknown Governor from Arkansas as his special guest to a meeting of the Bilderberg Group...one of the groups which shape world financial and political policy. The special guest was Bill Clinton. Bush took him again in 1991. To introduce him to the people who run the world.

Then, in the 1992 election, Bush # 1 did the ONLY THING HE COULD HAVE DONE TO GURANTEE HIS DEFEAT. He raised taxes. 'Read my lips...no new taxes'. The Dems had a field day and could have got a chimp elected.

The Democrat / Republican paradigm is false. The first thing Clinton did was to sign NAFTA, which is contrary to the interests of American Unions. A Democrat signed it. Clinton just carried on 'Republican' policy in de-industrializing America.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,?
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:55 AM

Who was it said that truth is the first victim of war? And who is it who believes that we can justify what is about to happen to the people of Iraq because they are governed by someone who they did not choose, and cannot control. (A bit like the USA & possibly those of us lumbered with his chihuaha Blair.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:32 AM

Claymore:

Not sure why I got dragged into the fray, but Clinton was real good at capitulating to the IMF, World Bank and corporate globalization. The NAFTA agreement is a prime example of just how cooperative Clinton was in bending over backwards for Boss Hog.

Now, a fot GUEST. GUEST is "right on" most opf the t6ime as far as I can see. We differ on how best to defend our liberties but I can't find much error is GUEST's observations.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:01 PM

That surprises me, Bobert, as you're usually fairly perceptive. The number of problems with our nameless GUEST's theories is incredible. To begin:

The concept of a global banking syndicate forming 500 years ago is ridiculous. The cutting edge of economic theory at the time was mercantilism, the idea that there was a finite market and the only way to increase profits was to edge out the competition. No one using that theory would even have considered a global power-sharing conspiracy, because it would have decreased their profits.

While the number of people who control the majority of the world's money is frighteningly low, it is not measured in hundreds but at least tens of thousands. Further, many of these wealthy persons want absolutely nothing to do with each other, as a great many are Arab oil magnates, not noted for their cooperation with the American and European elites.

As to the possibility of a Malthusian population crash, it is quite likely, but utterly opposed to the interests of the ruling classes, either the actual ones or GUEST's conspiracy. That sort of thing destroys the value of wealth, as well as the infrastructure that said wealth is based upon. No way in hell they'd provoke it.

Finally, race specific weapons. Yes, it is possible to target a virus at a specific genotype. Unfortunately, those genotypes are fairly broad, and take a long time to differentiate. A weapon targeted at Russia's population would be primarily aimed at Slavs. However, in order to achieve total annihilation, it would also need to include the Germanic Rus, who invaded in the late first millenium A.D., and the eastern steppe peoples as well. This would result in a weapon whose potential targets included more than half of all Caucasian Americans, including the majority of the persons GUEST claims are behind this conspiracy. Ethnic weapons only work on isolated populations. Any attempt to use them on a nation as large and pan-ethnic as Russia would be doomed to failure.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:14 PM

I'll admit, Forum Lurker, that GUEST has strayed a tad too far from the shore on a few points but there does seem to be a major consolidation of power which I find frightening.

Take the FCC, for example. The BIG FOUR are pressuring the government to life the last 5 regulations on ownership of media. If they fall, then the BIG FOUR will become the BIG THREE and the BIG THREE will become.....

This has occured in banking, automobiles, defense suppliers, aircraft buldiers, ship builders, building products, department stores. Yes, while the choices of porducts are at an all time high, those that market everthing is a shrinking pool.

So, do I agree with GUEST on everything? Heck no! But even the things where we disagree, I'm richer for at least having the position presented for thought.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 09:18 AM

What a (low level?) blunder

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 04:05 PM

CarolC, as you know, I differ with Bush in at least two major areas, abortion and gun law administration.

As for Iraq, he's running behind me, as you know I wanted Clinton in there three years ago. I did note that you state the Bush Administration has "sanctified my position," which should indicate that I held the position before Bush was a dot on the political horizon. But since the world, the Bush Administration, and the God-Almighty Washington Post, have come to MY POSITION, me and my battleship are doing just fine , thank you... ;}

Now for Gods Sake, read every word of GUEST post's, so you have a clue what you are condoning... Bobert, you too; your future credibility hangs in the balance (IMO).

And GUEST: the Mena airstrip "connection" was LaRouche crap 15 years ago and I had the pleasure of putting him in jail for five years in 1988. (Not over that issue, but taxes and loan fraud). Judge Albert V Bryant ruled on that issue during the trial, at the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria, VA. If your going to come up with a wackoid conspiracy, at least try to come up with a new one...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 05:04 PM

I agree it looks like a blunder, but I'm not certain it really is one. The problem is, both governments are engaging in bureaucratic run around 101. Pass out a lot of pieces of paper with writing on them (doesn't really matter what it actually says, who wrote it, or when), and claim it to be "evidence" or "documentation" or "accountability" or whatever the word is that best fits the blank for the specific instance. Bureacrats operate according to this sort of a belief system--the one that says if it is a piece of paper that we issued, it carries the same moral weight as the Bible.

We are conditioned to believe that if something is written down, or if a government official hands out the papers, and calls those pieces of paper "evidence" then it must be true, even when it hasn't been examined and verified independently (the job of a free press in a free country, but someone forgot to tell Disney that). So, the government official hands out the papers, then the media writes down exactly what the official tells them to write down, about these papers. Then they print that as "the story" or "the facts", often without even examining the pieces of paper--you know, like actually reading them.

I'm guessing that with the vast majority of the world's citizens being against this war, this pressure is resulting in something positive--at least some in the media fear losing all credibility (which could actually threaten their jobs) with the public, are actually taking some (not a lot though) time to check on the veracity of the stories, to see if the information is credible, and where it is coming from. That appears to be what happened this time. Because they know that if they don't check on it, there are plenty of people opposed to the war, who have excellent research credentials, and who will definitely be going over the documents with a fine tooth comb.

Bottom line--neither government has presented any credible evidence against Saddam Hussein on either WMD or links to The Big Terrorist Network We Are Now Ignoring--that one behind the curtain. Ignore that terrorist network behind the curtain. The Great, Benificent Oz has it all under control. You dare to doubt the Great and Powerful Oz? You do?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 05:50 PM

And don't forget those scarey ariel photographs, GUEST. Heck, if ya' flew over a church and took pictures of it and put ot on the 6:00 news, millions would cringe. Just something real sinister about ariels.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:25 PM

Now for Gods Sake, read every word of GUEST post's, so you have a clue what you are condoning...

Still skimming instead of actually reading, I see, Claymore. Please show me the post where I have indicated that I condone anything that this GUEST is doing.

A gold star for you if you can find the post where I say I don't see his/her position as having any basis in any sort of rational thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:32 PM

Well, if you want to read a humorous take on the UK dossier fiasco, go here:

Get Your War On

and scroll down to the bottom comic strip.

OH MY GOD!!!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Truth' about Brit & Yank Claims on Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:20 AM

The section of the UK Government "dossier" that was plagiarised, comes from a post-graduate thesis, written with source material acquired in the aftermath of "Desert Storm". As such it is an acedemic work, subject critical acedemic review. The author has gone on record as to stating that the work is his, he has also clearly stated that the work is accurate and still relevant.

That, I believe, puts it in a category of having more weight than some of sources quoted in posts to support various points view.

As to the "conspiracy" theorists who appear in greater and greater numbers, with the avowed conspiracy getting more and more convoluted, I would like to ask this general question. Has anybody entering this forum ever been involved in a conspiracy that was founded on a lie that involves a large number of people?

I think you will find that, even taking it down to it's simplest form, just trying to maintain a lie is incredibly difficult, let alone converting that into some of the multi-national, all encompassing, world domination conspiracy theories blasted out as gospel truth by some on this forum. Hells teeth it was incredibly difficult back in Roman times, with the means of communication available today, particularly with regard to access to information and ability to cross-check that information, it becomes well nigh impossible. The effort and resources required would be immense and lies do not tend to be effective with large numbers of people involved. Good in fiction, not in real life.