The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The best conspiracy theories draw as many different threads together as possible, to weave some elaborate, incredible, yet compelling tapestry of possible truths.
This is not such a theory. But let me run it by you:
Kelly's watching the government's handling of the whole Iraq thing, he comes to the conclusion that the way the government have, since the start of the war, begun implying that there was a *direct* threat of Irq using their WMDs against the UK, is misdirecting the public, because there's no reliable evidence to back up this change in position (from claiming the weapons could get into terrorist hands).
He speaks with people, including Gilligan. Somewhere along the line Kelly's position gets oversimplified as: 'the government are misleading the public, with the 45 minutes claim', which then is taken to mean the 45 minute thing is false.
And here we are, one big misunderstanding or something.
As I understand it, there's enough vagueness in the relevant events that it could have happened like this. Yes?
This is not such a theory. But let me run it by you:
Kelly's watching the government's handling of the whole Iraq thing, he comes to the conclusion that the way the government have, since the start of the war, begun implying that there was a *direct* threat of Irq using their WMDs against the UK, is misdirecting the public, because there's no reliable evidence to back up this change in position (from claiming the weapons could get into terrorist hands).
He speaks with people, including Gilligan. Somewhere along the line Kelly's position gets oversimplified as: 'the government are misleading the public, with the 45 minutes claim', which then is taken to mean the 45 minute thing is false.
And here we are, one big misunderstanding or something.
As I understand it, there's enough vagueness in the relevant events that it could have happened like this. Yes?
Page:
Technically, any country is a threat if they have long range weapons, it doesn't mean that we go to war with them.
The USA is a potential threat, all it takes is one war mongering leader (oh, and look, here he is) to disagree with us. Ok, to that's a bit far fetched, but it has the basis of truth in it, which, it seems, is all the goverment needs these days.
China? North Korea? India? All possible attackers, yet currently with little motive. How much more motive did Iraq have to bomb the UK, a lot less, if none, than bombing the USA.
The USA is a potential threat, all it takes is one war mongering leader (oh, and look, here he is) to disagree with us. Ok, to that's a bit far fetched, but it has the basis of truth in it, which, it seems, is all the goverment needs these days.
China? North Korea? India? All possible attackers, yet currently with little motive. How much more motive did Iraq have to bomb the UK, a lot less, if none, than bombing the USA.
Belldandy wrote:
> Don't really buy this "he allowed people to believe it"
> idea. He didn't say it, the government cannot deny everything that
> people dream up, and it's not their fault if people are stupid enough
> to come up with stuff. We don't see the US Government repeatedly
> denying the existence of UFO's, nor denying the Express's ludicrous
> Asylum Seeker related claims, because to even deny them is to give
> them credence.
Hmm. I'd argue that there are two key differences:
i) Here we are concerned with a far more widespread belief. Blank the minority viewpoint by all means, but it's a different matter when half the nation hold a wrongful belief.
ii) The government had a greater in causing the publics' beliefs about the threat from Iraq. It wasn't a question of trying to contradict another group's opinions, but correcting their own statements and making sure they didn't perpetuate the problem themselves.
Giving them credence? To publicise another group's claim when it can't be disproved could serve only perpetuate the belief.
However, here it's not a matter of having to disprove anything. Blair's government was trying to make the case for war. Any acknowledgement of the limitations of the case would have been accepted.
> Iraq was a threat. Was Afghanistan a threat on September 10th ? I
> don't doubt that well over 1/2 the public would have had difficulty
> explaining where Afganistan one, much less what Al Qaeda or Bin Laden
> were...
There was more to suggest Al Qaeda were a threat than Iraq. Like a history of active aggression towards western countries.
> Don't really buy this "he allowed people to believe it"
> idea. He didn't say it, the government cannot deny everything that
> people dream up, and it's not their fault if people are stupid enough
> to come up with stuff. We don't see the US Government repeatedly
> denying the existence of UFO's, nor denying the Express's ludicrous
> Asylum Seeker related claims, because to even deny them is to give
> them credence.
Hmm. I'd argue that there are two key differences:
i) Here we are concerned with a far more widespread belief. Blank the minority viewpoint by all means, but it's a different matter when half the nation hold a wrongful belief.
ii) The government had a greater in causing the publics' beliefs about the threat from Iraq. It wasn't a question of trying to contradict another group's opinions, but correcting their own statements and making sure they didn't perpetuate the problem themselves.
Giving them credence? To publicise another group's claim when it can't be disproved could serve only perpetuate the belief.
However, here it's not a matter of having to disprove anything. Blair's government was trying to make the case for war. Any acknowledgement of the limitations of the case would have been accepted.
> Iraq was a threat. Was Afghanistan a threat on September 10th ? I
> don't doubt that well over 1/2 the public would have had difficulty
> explaining where Afganistan one, much less what Al Qaeda or Bin Laden
> were...
There was more to suggest Al Qaeda were a threat than Iraq. Like a history of active aggression towards western countries.
Don't really buy this "he allowed people to believe it" idea. He didn't say it, the government cannot deny everything that people dream up, and it's not their fault if people are stupid enough to come up with stuff. We don't see the US Government repeatedly denying the existence of UFO's, nor denying the Express's ludicrous Asylum Seeker related claims, because to even deny them is to give them credence.
Iraq was a threat. Was Afghanistan a threat on September 10th ? I don't doubt that well over 1/2 the public would have had difficulty explaining where Afganistan one, much less what Al Qaeda or Bin Laden were...
Iraq was a threat. Was Afghanistan a threat on September 10th ? I don't doubt that well over 1/2 the public would have had difficulty explaining where Afganistan one, much less what Al Qaeda or Bin Laden were...
Just trying to boost your word count, aren't ya ;)
Sorry for the double post
Belldandy wrote:
> - the Al Samoud already exceeded the range set
> down by UN Sanctions - though many anti war campaigners conveniently
> forget that.
I'm not sure it was that cut and dry, I remember hearing they could only exceed the range when not fitted with a warhead. If memory serves.
Though I think that's a little off this particular point.
> But as I understood it, at no time did Blair say the weapons Iraq had
> would be used against the UK directly.
....
> Sure, the media may have implied it,
Hmm. Perhaps not, but at best he allowed people to believe it.
But beyond this, I believe the 45 minute claim is evidence of the government themselves implying a direct threat. Why give so much prominance to the time it would take Iraq to launch WMDs if they expected people to believe the only threat was from *other* people using the weapons?
Or to phrase it differently:
The reason for going to war was because terrorists may attack us with Saddam's WMDs.
If the government were maintaining this position, highlight how easily Iraq could attack us, when they admitted it would never happen?
We went to war because of the threat to US.
The government highlight how quickly Iraq could launch an attack.
The message was clear: "Look how quickly Saddam can use his weapons to kill US."
Maybe not an express decleration. After all, it was a *gradual* curbing of peoples' beliefs to make them consider Iraq a direct threat. But to me, the intent is clear.
> - the Al Samoud already exceeded the range set
> down by UN Sanctions - though many anti war campaigners conveniently
> forget that.
I'm not sure it was that cut and dry, I remember hearing they could only exceed the range when not fitted with a warhead. If memory serves.
Though I think that's a little off this particular point.
> But as I understood it, at no time did Blair say the weapons Iraq had
> would be used against the UK directly.
....
> Sure, the media may have implied it,
Hmm. Perhaps not, but at best he allowed people to believe it.
But beyond this, I believe the 45 minute claim is evidence of the government themselves implying a direct threat. Why give so much prominance to the time it would take Iraq to launch WMDs if they expected people to believe the only threat was from *other* people using the weapons?
Or to phrase it differently:
The reason for going to war was because terrorists may attack us with Saddam's WMDs.
If the government were maintaining this position, highlight how easily Iraq could attack us, when they admitted it would never happen?
We went to war because of the threat to US.
The government highlight how quickly Iraq could launch an attack.
The message was clear: "Look how quickly Saddam can use his weapons to kill US."
Maybe not an express decleration. After all, it was a *gradual* curbing of peoples' beliefs to make them consider Iraq a direct threat. But to me, the intent is clear.
Belldandy wrote:
> - the Al Samoud already exceeded the range set
> down by UN Sanctions - though many anti war campaigners conveniently
> forget that.
I'm not sure it was that cut and dry, I remember hearing they could only exceed the range when not fitted with a warhead. If memory serves.
Though I think that's a little off this particular point.
> But as I understood it, at no time did Blair say the weapons Iraq had
> would be used against the UK directly.
....
> Sure, the media may have implied it,
Hmm. Perhaps not, but at best he allowed people to believe it.
But beyond this, I believe the 45 minute claim is evidence of the government themselves implying a direct threat. Why give so much prominance to the time it would take Iraq to launch WMDs if they expected people to believe the only threat was from *other* people using the weapons?
Or to phrase it differently:
The reason for going to war was because terrorists may attack us with Saddam's WMDs.
If the government were maintaining this position, highlight how easily Iraq could attack us, when they admitted it would never happen?
We went to war because of the threat to US.
The government highlight how quickly Iraq could launch an attack.
The message was clear: "Look how quickly Saddam can use his weapons to kill US."
Maybe not an express decleration. After all, it was a *gradual* curbing of peoples' beliefs to make them consider Iraq a direct threat. But to me, the intent is clear.
> - the Al Samoud already exceeded the range set
> down by UN Sanctions - though many anti war campaigners conveniently
> forget that.
I'm not sure it was that cut and dry, I remember hearing they could only exceed the range when not fitted with a warhead. If memory serves.
Though I think that's a little off this particular point.
> But as I understood it, at no time did Blair say the weapons Iraq had
> would be used against the UK directly.
....
> Sure, the media may have implied it,
Hmm. Perhaps not, but at best he allowed people to believe it.
But beyond this, I believe the 45 minute claim is evidence of the government themselves implying a direct threat. Why give so much prominance to the time it would take Iraq to launch WMDs if they expected people to believe the only threat was from *other* people using the weapons?
Or to phrase it differently:
The reason for going to war was because terrorists may attack us with Saddam's WMDs.
If the government were maintaining this position, highlight how easily Iraq could attack us, when they admitted it would never happen?
We went to war because of the threat to US.
The government highlight how quickly Iraq could launch an attack.
The message was clear: "Look how quickly Saddam can use his weapons to kill US."
Maybe not an express decleration. After all, it was a *gradual* curbing of peoples' beliefs to make them consider Iraq a direct threat. But to me, the intent is clear.
But as I understood it, at no time did Blair say the weapons Iraq had would be used against the UK directly.
Yes, there was a threat to forces in countries around Iraq like Kuwait, yes, the theoretical range of one missile could be used to hit troops in Cyprus, and yes there was evidence Iraq was researching longer ranged missiles - the Al Samoud already exceeded the range set down by UN Sanctions - though many anti war campaigners conveniently forget that.
Sure, the media may have implied it, but the threat to the UK was definied as Iraq potentially passing the WMD to terrorists which would then use it, and at this moment we have no way of knowing the full story of this war, and what happened.
Can we, 100%, say the WMD was not partially destroyed but also partially dismantled and taken elsewhere. Satellite surveillance is not fool proof, and all it takes is for someone to have given Iraq the timings at which a snapshot/video of an area is taken. From what we know, the 9/11 attacks were planned up to 7 years before they took place, and right now we cannot find any WMD in Iraq.
Even Dr Kelly believed Iraq had some form of WMD, coalition forces have found masses of decontamination gear, bio suits etc that Saddam issued to his forces. We know, from the vast amounts of cash recovered from Iraq, that Saddam would only buy what was necessary for his troops. Why equip all of them, right down to the lowliest unit, with the gear ? Open source material clealry says that the forces arrayed against Saddam would not use the weapons requiring that protection unless they were first used against them.
I still believe the 20-45 minutes claim was true, that Iraq had WMD, and that we need to find it, because it existed, and lack of evidence does not always mean there is none.
Yes, there was a threat to forces in countries around Iraq like Kuwait, yes, the theoretical range of one missile could be used to hit troops in Cyprus, and yes there was evidence Iraq was researching longer ranged missiles - the Al Samoud already exceeded the range set down by UN Sanctions - though many anti war campaigners conveniently forget that.
Sure, the media may have implied it, but the threat to the UK was definied as Iraq potentially passing the WMD to terrorists which would then use it, and at this moment we have no way of knowing the full story of this war, and what happened.
Can we, 100%, say the WMD was not partially destroyed but also partially dismantled and taken elsewhere. Satellite surveillance is not fool proof, and all it takes is for someone to have given Iraq the timings at which a snapshot/video of an area is taken. From what we know, the 9/11 attacks were planned up to 7 years before they took place, and right now we cannot find any WMD in Iraq.
Even Dr Kelly believed Iraq had some form of WMD, coalition forces have found masses of decontamination gear, bio suits etc that Saddam issued to his forces. We know, from the vast amounts of cash recovered from Iraq, that Saddam would only buy what was necessary for his troops. Why equip all of them, right down to the lowliest unit, with the gear ? Open source material clealry says that the forces arrayed against Saddam would not use the weapons requiring that protection unless they were first used against them.
I still believe the 20-45 minutes claim was true, that Iraq had WMD, and that we need to find it, because it existed, and lack of evidence does not always mean there is none.
agrees because i wanna look clever!
I think you could be right there.
Page: