Gifford (and others) Shooting

IdleRich

IdleRich
But the point is they had to stand up and admit that the story as it was printed wasn't true and explain how it had come to be printed. OK, I don't believe their explanations but they were challenged. As far as I can tell the guy who said that Hawking would have died if he had been born in the UK never had to say "oh sorry, I was wrong" - why not?
This the story by the way (seems they later removed the editorial but as far as I know no apology was made)

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-bl...-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
I've just been reading the BBC thread on Have Your Say titled "Will the Arizona shootings have an effect on US politics?".
Best response so far is "Yes, they're gonna need a by-election".
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
edit: fwiw there's been too much made of the 45-min claim. It was a particularly egregious example of govt bullshit, but it's only retrospectively that people have claimed it played a major part in leading us into war. It didn't.

Fair enough, but what about the presence and threat of the WMDs more generally? I mean, none have ever been found, at least not in any usable state, as far as I remember - and I'm sure certain people would have made a very great deal out of any that had been found. Which does make one wonder what happened to them, as Saddam undoubtedly used them against his own people in the '80s and also in the war with Iran, IIRC. Is it conceivable he had his stockpiles destroyed before or during the invasion to make the coalition look bad?
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Fair enough, but what about the presence and threat of the WMDs more generally? I mean, none have ever been found, at least not in any usable state, as far as I remember - and I'm sure certain people would have made a very great deal out of any that had been found. Which does make one wonder what happened to them, as Saddam undoubtedly used them against his own people in the '80s and also in the war with Iran, IIRC. Is it conceivable he had his stockpiles destroyed before or during the invasion to make the coalition look bad?

No. It's conceded he didn't have any. Blair and Bush have both mumbled apologies for the faulty intelligence on this.
 

grizzleb

Well-known member
Yeah, Saddam was confirmed by UN weapons inspectors as early as 1998 as having removed his wmd capabilities, in compliance with the conditions that were imposed by the UN, and enacted with the UN.

The point about the 45 minute claim not leading us into war is slightly disingenuous I think; there was no 'one thing' that led us into war, it was the cumulation of lots of little lies, lots of little bits of disinformation, lots of little things implied rather than said, of which the 45 minute claim is just a prime example.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
how about...

you forgot rampant militarism and staggeringly wide income gaps and a hundred other things that could fill out a litany of what's wrong that stretches from here to eternity. I'm not sure who's eyes you think you're opening here. I mean really. I got news for you tho, Europe ain't a single whit better, just more hypocritical. if you think the Germans, French and the rest aren't every bit as tied into an economic structure based around the exploitation of far-off people and their lands then you're deluding yourself (not to mention Europe's complete failure to integrate, or even try to, its own immigrant underclass). the entire world is a grim piece of work. always has been, like as not always will be, not matter the thin veneer of civilization that we drape over our savagery nowadays. which isn't a reason to give up on it or just passively accept awfulness when you can do something about it. it is a good reason, tho, not to get fixated on the U.S. as being somehow a unique entity in history, as if you toppled it the world would magically become a place of sunshine and happiness and unicorns. China or India or some combination thereof would sit down on the throne and the world would continue on in its grimness.

I reckon this is the your point anyway, the only one you ever really make:

and the truth that my eyes see for themselves, is simply a lot more fucked, on so many different levels including structural and institutional, than most people care to acknowledge.

to present yourself as the lone voice of truth in the wilderness, crying out to bring illumination to the ignorant. which isn't, of course remotely true. and, as usual, is on a topic about which you appear to know next to nothing.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Yeah, Saddam was confirmed by UN weapons inspectors as early as 1998 as having removed his wmd capabilities, in compliance with the conditions that were imposed by the UN, and enacted with the UN.

Have you got a link for that?

The point about the 45 minute claim not leading us into war is slightly disingenuous I think; there was no 'one thing' that led us into war, it was the cumulation of lots of little lies, lots of little bits of disinformation, lots of little things implied rather than said, of which the 45 minute claim is just a prime example.

I agree it was a build-up of lots of little lies, but my point is that the 45-min claim has acquired a greater significance in the demonology of the war since then precisely because it was such a flagrant example of bullshit. People have since made it into a major factor - it wasn't.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Slavoj Žižek, Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), Michel Foucault, Gandhi, Plato. Buddha, etc, etc, etc.

somehow I feel Foucault and Plato (you're maybe thinking of the allegory of the cave? that's not what it's about), not to mention to the rest - excepting the guy from the Matrix - were on to something a bit more complex but then I never thought to see Buddha on a list with Zizek, let alone one that has them supporting the same viewpoint, silly though it may be, so kudos for that I guess.

really tho, Morpheus? getting soft in your old age, bro...

but I think dude is right, it's best to let these meltdowns burn out on their own so that is what I shall be doing henceforth
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
In that John Pilger film afaik.

Pilger talking arse? Well bollock me backwards.

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Not sure, Pilger eats the arse of the beeb in it though..

Pilger crossed the line from polemicist to charlatan some time ago IMO. I'm sure you could find those timeline details verified elsewhere if you don't trust aunty.

edit: To clarify, I don't want to give the impression the US & UK made a credible case over WMD. They didn't, they grossly exaggerated his threat into one that could be carried abroad and throughout the region, when really most believed it only threatened Iraqis. This might still have been a technical breach, though not one that could justify the inflated rhetoric emanating from her and Washington. This is what Robin Cook was getting at when he said:
"I have never ruled out the possibility that we may unearth some old stock of biological toxins or chemical agents and it is possible that we may yet find some battlefield shells.

"Nevertheless, this would not constitute weapons of mass destruction and would not justify the claim before the war that Iraq posed what the prime minister described as a 'current and serious threat'."

anyway, apologies, derailment over
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
Just been reading that interview.

"Palin conceded that some of the points Obama made "really hit home", but she suggested he had tried to exploit the incident. "The setting was a bit bizarre. It was a bit like a pep rally, kind of like a campaign stop. The setting really did detract away from the message," she said."
Doesn't seem to realise that the way to look as though you are not exploiting the tragedy is to rise above the accusations, not to accuse everyone else of exploitation.

Her phrasing is just such a mess.

"If a lie does live, then of course your career is over and your reputation is thrashed and you will be ineffective in what we intend to do."
Why will I be ineffective in what she intends to do?
 

Sectionfive

bandwagon house
13Xyx.png
 
Top