Is 'British intelligence' an oxymoron?
Discussion
Shocking behaviour, it calls into question the quality of any 'evidence' our beloved government claims to have to back up their actions. But we all knew better than to trust the government already, didn't we.
What I find more suprising is that this is not headline news. I can't find any mention of it on the BBC news site... once again the BBC are showing themselves to be Blair's willing propaganda factory.
Clunts.
What I find more suprising is that this is not headline news. I can't find any mention of it on the BBC news site... once again the BBC are showing themselves to be Blair's willing propaganda factory.
Clunts.
Bonce said:What I find more suprising is that this is not headline news. I can't find any mention of it on the BBC news site...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm
Agent006 said: There was a suggestion on the news that there was only about 2 paragraphs of MI6 data. Allegedly because they refused to provide intelligence for propoganda. So the government just pinched someone elses. And the nedited it to make it sound more "effective".
That I can believe.
H
plotloss said:
Bodo said:So, on what kind of information does Blair base his decisions on?
If you had seen him on the Paxman special last night the answer would be obvious. He has a magic 8 ball that his owner/trainer Bush gave him.
Matt.
Can a shaved monkey be an owner/trainer???
>> Edited by krispy on Friday 7th February 13:53
Agent006 said: So the government just pinched someone elses. And then edited it to make it sound more "effective".
On one level it is so funny - they couldn't even check the material for smelling pistakes, let alone accuracy!
On another it could just mean that we've all been duped and the government is, in fact, just the set of a the latest "Carry On" movie.
Perhaps they do actually know what's going on in the world ........ [ducks]
Oink
Flap
Oink
Flap
Yes second thoughts bring on the revolution
at least it is one in the eye for the conspiracy theorists. This bunch of muppets (govt PR machine)couldn't construct a decent conspiracy even if their mummies helped them.
Unless of course it is a triple decker double bluff.
You'll never hear good quality and specific intelligence material in public because it would put people's lives at risk. How the hell is an intelligence service supposed to recruit new informants if they have a reputation for putting the data these people provide in the public forum?
Unless of course it is a triple decker double bluff.
You'll never hear good quality and specific intelligence material in public because it would put people's lives at risk. How the hell is an intelligence service supposed to recruit new informants if they have a reputation for putting the data these people provide in the public forum?
Hi all,
People seem very eager to question the source of this intelligence, but few seem willing to question the source or motive of the media proferring this information.
To most people's surprise, the actual product that news media produce is you, the viewer, listener or reader.
The media's true customer is the advertiser. Their profits are derived from their ability to deliver you to the advertiser. Accordingly, the stories that their editorial staffs determine should be covered and presented are designed to lure you to them in order to boost their ratings. The media with the highest ratings can command the greatest advertising rates. In other words, it is systemic that they will feed you what you want to hear.
You can all make light of the Intelligence Community's foibles, but that doesn't mean the information is incorrect. Saddam Hussein is a despotic leader who does not serve his people, but rather sees them as serving his ego and interests. Add to that his mania for very destructive weaponry and his disregard for other people's sovreignty and you have a guy who must be removed from power.
It doesn't mean that there are not other trouble spots in the world such as Coastal Africa, N. Korea, Israel/Palestine etc. But our ability to influence events in those areas may, in some measure, depend upon what they view our resolve to be with respect to Iraq. This is not a US Imperialist incursion, it is the result of a unanimous rsolution by the UN, one which every government in the world voted for.
Iraq has failed to recognize the collective authority of the UN despite 12 years of economic embargo, and even now has chosen to deceive UN inspectors. The UN is dangerously close to be discounted to the History dust bin as poseesing no more authority than it's predessor, the League of Nations. Jim'85TE
People seem very eager to question the source of this intelligence, but few seem willing to question the source or motive of the media proferring this information.
To most people's surprise, the actual product that news media produce is you, the viewer, listener or reader.
The media's true customer is the advertiser. Their profits are derived from their ability to deliver you to the advertiser. Accordingly, the stories that their editorial staffs determine should be covered and presented are designed to lure you to them in order to boost their ratings. The media with the highest ratings can command the greatest advertising rates. In other words, it is systemic that they will feed you what you want to hear.
You can all make light of the Intelligence Community's foibles, but that doesn't mean the information is incorrect. Saddam Hussein is a despotic leader who does not serve his people, but rather sees them as serving his ego and interests. Add to that his mania for very destructive weaponry and his disregard for other people's sovreignty and you have a guy who must be removed from power.
It doesn't mean that there are not other trouble spots in the world such as Coastal Africa, N. Korea, Israel/Palestine etc. But our ability to influence events in those areas may, in some measure, depend upon what they view our resolve to be with respect to Iraq. This is not a US Imperialist incursion, it is the result of a unanimous rsolution by the UN, one which every government in the world voted for.
Iraq has failed to recognize the collective authority of the UN despite 12 years of economic embargo, and even now has chosen to deceive UN inspectors. The UN is dangerously close to be discounted to the History dust bin as poseesing no more authority than it's predessor, the League of Nations. Jim'85TE
May I nitpick for a second - I think they will feed you what they think you will watch/hear/read, not necessarily what you actually want to watch/hear/read.
lotusguy said: In other words, it is systemic that they will feed you what you want to hear.
e.g. Not many people really enjoy reading about someone being raped, but they read it all the same....
elanturbo said: Are you suggesting that this information on the British report is incorrect or a fiction created by the media?
ET,
I do not have enough information to verify the accuracy of this reporting. There are many ways to view information.
What I find disturbing is an emerging trend for peoples to lend instant and absolute credence to whatever some 'Talking Head' reads off a teleprompter without even the slightest consideration of what their self-interested motives might be. Have we truly become that easy to deceive and begile?
Peter Jennings never even finished high school, Dan Rather earned an English degree from West Texas State Teachers College, Diane Sawyers credentials stem from the fact that she won the Miss Kentucky Beauty Contest, etc. I don't believe that good hair, an Ipana smile and the ability to read a teleprompter imparts one with any great insight into the complex interpretion of the world's events.
Assuming the reporting is correct, that the information was, in fact, derived from the content of a student's paper, the true question is what is the student's source? Is it credible? If so, then it matters not where the information came from, only that it is correct.
But, people are overlooking the most important and credible information which Powell revealed to the UN Security Council, namely intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi military personnel who more than demonstrated their governments policy to discount the resolution of the UN which demands Iraq's disarmament and their attempts to hide and deceive the UN Inspectors. This makes further inspections irrelevant. And, what seems to lost here is the fact that the Inpectors are not charged with finding all of Iraq's WMD, or even a single one. Their task is to determine whether or not Iraq is abiding by the UN resolution 1441 which calls for it to disarm. The latest report to the UN from Hans Blix, Chief Inspector, has already stated in no uncertain terms that they are not complying.
Many here joke and cajole what they see are their government's or leader's actions. What they fail to see is how truly stupid and unintelligent it is to make light of such serious stuff, and how rediculous they come off in doing so. There are many clever idiots out there. To be sure, they are clever, but at the same time, they are still idiots as well. Jim'85TE
CraigAlsop said:May I nitpick for a second - I think they will feed you what they think you will watch/hear/read, not necessarily what you actually want to watch/hear/read.
lotusguy said: In other words, it is systemic that they will feed you what you want to hear.
e.g. Not many people really enjoy reading about someone being raped, but they read it all the same....
Craig,
No major disagreement here, except that you seem to have missed the point, which is that the content of any media news is merely bait to capture you for the advertiser. Knowing this, one is much less likely to accept their offerings without question. I do acknowledge your assertion that you were nitpicking though. Jim'85TE
Assuming the reporting is correct, that the information was, in fact, derived from the content of a student's paper, the true question is what is the student's source? Is it credible? If so, then it matters not where the information came from, only that it is correct.
And so far there is no evidence apart from our leaders telling us its correct. If its come from a students report why didn't they tell us?
But, people are overlooking the most important and credible information which Powell revealed to the UN Security Council, namely intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi military personnel who more than demonstrated their governments policy to discount the resolution of the UN which demands Iraq's disarmament and their attempts to hide and deceive the UN Inspectors. This makes further inspections irrelevant. And, what seems to lost here is the fact that the Inpectors are not charged with finding all of Iraq's WMD, or even a single one. Their task is to determine whether or not Iraq is abiding by the UN resolution 1441 which calls for it to disarm. The latest report to the UN from Hans Blix, Chief Inspector, has already stated in no uncertain terms that they are not complying.
So that gives us the right to go and invade without the UN? If you saw newsnight Blair made it very clear that if the second resolution is vitoed then they wil still go in. Sorry as far as I can see that the US/UK going against the UN, the very reason THEY are using to invade Iraq.
If you haven't seen the newsnight programme may i suggest you watch it on the bbc website.
IMHO the evidence shown was weak and the only extra reasurance we got was a typical T Blair emotive speach about how world terrorism will get WOMD if we don't have a war with Iraq. He also failed to answer any question about what happend after we attack Iraq, do we go onto other countries? the message between the lines was yes. Its very easy to say GO its far harder to stop, before we go against the UN we need to be absolutley sure we're doing the right thing.
Many here joke and cajole what they see are their government's or leader's actions. What they fail to see is how truly stupid and unintelligent it is to make light of such serious stuff, and how rediculous they come off in doing so. There are many clever idiots out there. To be sure, they are clever, but at the same time, they are still idiots as well. Jim'85TE
What else can we do LotusGuy? I certainly can't stop Blair and Bush invading I can only disagree and make jokes to relieve the tension.
Seems to me Lotusguy that you have been media attacked as well. Anyone suggest that the evidence is cr@p and you start stating that the newsreaders are idiots (BTW they only read it, they don't make it).
We had an interesting discussion on this forum yesturday with people making good points on both sides of the argument. Certainly I, and I hope a lot of us had to think about points raised. I felt we shouldn't attack Iraq (thats my opinion) after the newsnight programme I'm still conviced its the wrong way to go. As were the people in that show. Even T Blair admitted that convincing the people that this was the right move without the UN would be hard. Too bl**dy right it will, and an emotive speach won't do it!
>> Edited by smeagol on Friday 7th February 18:05
smeagol said:
So that gives us the right to go and invade without the UN? If you saw newsnight Blair made it very clear that if the second resolution is vitoed then they wil still go in. Sorry as far as I can see that the US/UK going against the UN, the very reason THEY are using to invade Iraq.
If you haven't seen the newsnight programme may i suggest you watch it on the bbc website.
IMHO the evidence shown was weak and the only extra reasurance we got was a typical T Blair emotive speach about how world terrorism will get WOMD if we don't have a war with Iraq. He also failed to answer any question about what happend after we attack Iraq, do we go onto other countries? the message between the lines was yes. Its very easy to say GO its far harder to stop, before we go against the UN we need to be absolutley sure we're doing the right thing.
Firstly, we do not have the right to simply go and invade another, but as history has shown, this is not something either the UK or the US have done with no reason or provokation. Granted, you may not believe that it is suffcicient justification, but that is another issue entirely. What we do have, as two of the most powerful nations on earth is a responsibility to use that power to maintain and promote peace, sometimes that means removing those who wish to harm by force if all else fails.
Your claim to not be convinced by any recently revealed evidence is simply not germain. Your overview of Saddam and his history must lead you to conclude that he is a bad guy and does not want to live in peace with the rest of the world. If this is not your conclusion, then perhaps you should seek a refund from whatever educational institute you attended.His treatment of his own people alone would land him in the World Court for Crimes against Humanity.
Many here joke and cajole what they see are their government's or leader's actions. What they fail to see is how truly stupid and unintelligent it is to make light of such serious stuff, and how rediculous they come off in doing so. There are many clever idiots out there. To be sure, they are clever, but at the same time, they are still idiots as well. Jim'85TE
What else can we do LotusGuy? I certainly can't stop Blair and Bush invading I can only disagree and make jokes to relieve the tension.
Seems to me Lotusguy that you have been media attacked as well. Anyone suggest that the evidence is cr@p and you start stating that the newsreaders are idiots (BTW they only read it, they don't make it).
What you fail to acknowledge is that there is more than sufficient evidence that this despot must be dealt with, and better now that the rest of the world has a military advantage over him, than to wait until his strength more equally matches our own.
As far as what you can do, is devote your time and energy in exploring the facts, history and probable future should the World fail to act. Admittedly, it is much easier to simply accept some overly simplified arguements and soundbites as your basis of fact. Add to that many people's incorruptable view that war should be avoided at any costs. No amount of evidence will be sufficient to change such a point of view, except maybe a gas or fallout cloud hovering over your neighborhood. Should that occur, you will simply want your leaders to make it go away, no matter the means. I have been to war, I flew a Nuclear capable aircraft, I lost close personal friends in front of my own eyes. I have no desire to see war waged for frivolous purposes, my aversion to war is possibly more acute than your own.
We had an interesting discussion on this forum yesturday with people making good points on both sides of the argument. Certainly I, and I hope a lot of us had to think about points raised. I felt we shouldn't attack Iraq (thats my opinion) after the newsnight programme I'm still conviced its the wrong way to go. As were the people in that show. Even T Blair admitted that convincing the people that this was the right move without the UN would be hard. Too bl**dy right it will, and an emotive speach won't do it!
I am trying to get people on point, the previious discussions are centering on peripheral subjects. The real point is, Iraq is disregarding the authority of the UN by ignoring the resolutions passed upon it for the last 13 years. They have recently demonstrated a policy of lying and deceiving the UN Inspectors and clearly have no intention of disarming.
As far as a 2nd UN resolution, it's akin to passing a resolution stating that the 1st resolution must be obeyed. There was no ambiguity in resolution #1441 and it simply needs no further authority. It was voted upon near unanimously, did the nations of the world not intend the resolution to be carried out? If a second resolution is moved upon, the UN loses all credibility to act to establish peace throughout the world. It would be a clear demonstration to anyone that there is no enforcement power in the UN, rendering any future attempts at having governments act in accord with the best interests of mankind mere words. Yes, there are many other problems in the world today, East Africa, Israel/Palestine, N. Korea, China etc., but we must deal with each of these in turn and in a manner specific to that individual situation. To be sure, N. Korea's recent actions are threatening to the same extent as Saddam's behavior is, what differentiates it is the fact that bye and large, in the past 50 years N. Korea has agreed to be bound by negotiation and treaty and presumably will be again. Their aims may be far different than Iraq, using their redevelopment of Nuclear forces for economic gain, not to invade and dominate a region, something the PRC would never condone.
>> Edited by smeagol on Friday 7th February 18:05
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff