The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
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.
Page: