Well, Ive tried to keep my comments mostly in context to what the topic of the thread was about.
I think that you have another agenda here, and an extremist view which only seems to be paralleled to why Scott started the topic in the first place.
I do not agree with your claims, maybe you are right, but i dont see any evidence that supports the extremist view you hold, and i dont see a clamour of people rushing to support it here at AI, or anywhere else in the world.
OK, TELL ME, where do you suggest we get the real, unbiased, untainted, honest, correct, news from.
Bunge, if you want the BBC story explained, I suggest you read what MarcUk says.
THat's essentially where I'm leaning, but if I do I'll be labeled as who knows what for siding against the Blair/Bush conglomerate. I'm waiting for any shred of evidence to balance the scales before I have to agree with what MarcUK is saying.
I can only tell you about how I see things from my perspective. And I can tell you with absolute certainly that the "News" that is fed to you by the BBC is nothing more than editorialized spin serving Arab propaganda interests. But this is not unique to the BBC. If you look at the first page of this thread, you will see my post about the IHT as an example of how the news is doctored to serve those interests. The case is very analogous to what's going on at the BBC. Being an Israeli I know the situation first hand. I know the news relating to Israel intimately. And I tell you that 95% of what you are fed by your major "News" media outlets is propagandized.
Regards Iraq and the WoMD. Look at it this way... if you had something you *know* you weren't supposed to have, and you had fourteen months' notice that the cops were coming, would you sit on your hands and wait for them to arrive? But the only soundbite your News media sees fit to repeat over and over is reportage of Kay saying 'they won't be found in Iraq' and 'haven't been any in Iraq since the start of the war'. Note that both can be true, and wholly consistent with them being moved to Syria, but the media couches those bites in reports of the "controversy", leaving the impression that there never were any - even though Kay and others have alluded to them being moved to Syria.
THat's essentially where I'm leaning, but if I do I'll be labeled as who knows what for siding against the Blair/Bush conglomerate. I'm waiting for any shred of evidence to balance the scales before I have to agree with what MarcUK is saying.
Im not against the war in Iraq, the end result, will in time i am sure be a better solution than leaving Saddam in power. Was the intel correct, it seems not. Did the governments exaggerate, spin, mislead, lie, call it what you want, most probably true. Have over 600 soldiers died, yes. How many innocent iraqi's died? thousands. Has it cost the earth to achieve this. So ... Was it necessary right now, probably not.
Do I like Blair? no. DID i like Blair? yes. Do I like Bush? I didn't, but now I am neutral.
But in the context of the Hutton enquiry, of which I am trying to keep my comments too, it has been largely proved that the BBC made a few mistakes and paid a heavy consequence, while the UK government made alot of far more serious, infact wholly devious errors, (infact, I have a problem with calling them errors, when its pretty clear that much of it was intentional) and were totally cleared.
Hutton was simply not right in terms of the evidence he was presented with, Everything else is a different story, and deserves a different discussion.
I can only tell you about how I see things from my perspective. And I can tell you with absolute certainly that the "News" that is fed to you by the BBC is nothing more than editorialized spin serving Arab propaganda interests. But this is not unique to the BBC. If you look at the first page of this thread, you will see my post about the IHT as an example of how the news is doctored to serve those interests. The case is very analogous to what's going on at the BBC. Being an Israeli I know the situation first hand. I know the news relating to Israel intimately. And I tell you that 95% of what you are fed by your major "News" media outlets is propagandized.
a) But what has this got to do with the Hutton enquiry?
b) OK, you are an israeli, do you then expect me to believe that you have a neutral, untainted opinion. And there is good reason for that, but the kind of claims you are making, could only be bourne out by someone who holds such a personal connection with the situation. But this is not the truth as the majority of people see it, or the evidence suggests. Do you think I would be better served in world affairs by reading the Israeli press?
Quote:
Regards Iraq and the WoMD. Look at it this way... if you had something you *know* you weren't supposed to have, and you had fourteen months' notice that the cops were coming, would you sit on your hands and wait for them to arrive? But the only soundbite your News media sees fit to repeat over and over is reportage of Kay saying 'they won't be found in Iraq' and 'haven't been any in Iraq since the start of the war'. Note that both can be true, and wholly consistent with them being moved to Syria, but the media couches those bites in reports of the "controversy", leaving the impression that there never were any - even though Kay and others have alluded to them being moved to Syria.
But that has been reported on the BBC, I've heard it, and Ive heard group discussion on this issue from both sides. Perhaps you would like them to highligh it every 30 seconds, as it serves your agenda. But is there any evidence of this, maybe or is it someones opinion to explain the situation? Probably.
Do you think Blair, or Bush would open up potentially very damaging enquiry's if they has a slightest sniff of evidence that weapons were moved to Syria, Iran, North Korea.
Tell me, as I honestly dont know. Is there a good relationship between Isreal and Syria, or would it be in your personal interests if you could get the US to invade Syria also?
[edit] Oh... i typed 'israel syria' into google. Need i say any more?
a) But what has this got to do with the Hutton enquiry?
It has a lot to with the Hutton enquiry. If it has to do to with fraud, arrogance, sloppiness, antagonism, abuse of power. Only, unlike their other BBC victims (Israel, being an example I'm intimately familiar with) that are powerless to do anything about it, this time it is their natural ally, the Labour government, who had to suffer thier Arabist agenda. Antagonizing this natural ally, meant that now there was enough political will around to actually, possibly, do something about it. Though like I said earlier, I doubt things will change much, it at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
b) OK, you are an israeli, do you then expect me to believe that you have a neutral, untainted opinion. And there is good reason for that, but the kind of claims you are making, could only be bourne out by someone who holds such a personal connection with the situation. But this is not the truth as the majority of people see it, or the evidence suggests. Do you think I would be better served in world affairs by reading the Israeli press?
I don't have a problem with BBC competing. If people want to tune in the BBC to get their daily dose of Commie propaganda, I'm all for. But why should the rest of the public be forced to subsidize these pinkos? The same situation is in Israel. You have these pinko mafiosi dominating the "publicly owned" IBA and the rest of us have to suffer, and pay to suffer their pinko agenda.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
But that has been reported on the BBC, I've heard it, and Ive heard group discussion on this issue from both sides. Perhaps you would like them to highligh it every 30 seconds, as it serves your agenda. But is there any evidence of this, maybe or is it someones opinion to explain the situation? Probably.
See. You're up on some of their techniques. And they're not that very subtle, are they?
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Do you think Blair, or Bush would open up potentially very damaging enquiry's if they has a slightest sniff of evidence that weapons were moved to Syria, Iran, North Korea.
I don't know. Is this good/bad for them? I don't know the answer. Maybe you could tell me?
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Tell me, as I honestly dont know. Is there a good relationship between Isreal and Syria, or would it be in your personal interests if you could get the US to invade Syria also?
The US couldn't do it even if it wanted to. I know it. You know it. Syria knows it. So I don't see this as even being a relevant argument. I also suspect this is part of the reason why the Bush administration is keeping a lid on this info for the time being.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
[edit] Oh... i typed 'israel syria' into google. Need i say any more?
Hmmm,.. let's see. A BBC fan unaware that there might me some antagonism between Israel and her Arab neighbors - and particularly Syria - who likes to shell the border and upper Galilee towns every time the tourist industry starts to show signs of recovery there. How very amusing. HaHaHa.
I think that you have another agenda here, and an extremist view which only seems to be paralleled to why Scott started the topic in the first place.
LOL.
This is truly Orwellian.
You have a BBC television story where they (uncritically) let George Galloway babble about the injustice of the Hutton report and then had a blurb from some other "expert" talking about how the government's story "didn't sync with what the British public saw on their televisions every night."
The government's story "didn't sync" with what they saw on TV?!?!
Well no shit!!!
There's a truly creepy "1984-ish" quality to this. "The BBC is right because the BBC tells me it's right."
And Yes. It's the same dear friend Galloway who was being bunged loadsamoney by Saddam. Of course he gets airtime on the BBC - he's just a normal middle-of-their-road voice!
And now these pinko fishwrappers are decrying that BBC independence is under threat from the government. One even said that nature programs were under threat. Panic mongering with blatantly false allegations yet again. The main BBC complaint though, is that just a low ranking journalist's report has caused an attack by the government on the BBC. But notice, Blair never attacked the BBC. All that was asked was that the BBC withdraw its false allegations!!
The BBC, top management included, made a very serious allegation, that the Blair government deliberately and knowingly misled parliament and the people, and went to war in Iraq, by falsifying intelligence data. If Hutton had shown that this had been true, then Blair and his cabinet would have had no alternative but to resign collectively. In fact, if I understand it correctly, the PM would have had to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. This would have caused a serious crisis in the UK, of the same magnitude as that of '56 Suez crisis. Moreover, our Koranimals in the ME and in Briton, would have rejoiced, that though Saddam had fallen, they had taken the scalp of Tony Blair. With President Bush being the next target.
The BBC cannot claim innocence. It knew perfectly well what it was up to. Now it is playing the victim. In fact, it is acting just like their beloved Jordyptians. Of course denial is just a river in Egypt.
No need to attack. It gets people banned (hint, hint.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Blue Shift
The BBC, top management included, made a very serious allegation, that the Blair government deliberately and knowingly misled parliament and the people, and went to war in Iraq, by falsifying intelligence data.
But you still don't acknowledge that even if the BBC was wrong about a point or two, it's claims were still correct.
MarkUk said "The BBC's (gilligan) story was correct, but he slipped up when he said "The government probably knew the 45 minute claim to be false" because he apparently did not have evidence of this claim.
The BBC then decided to defend its reporter after the govnments spindoctor Campbell complained.
This is the extent of the BBC's errors."
Wrong! Gilligan has himself admitted that this "slip-up" as you put it was an inference of his alone, and he made it sound like Kelly had said it. It was a ridiculous thing to say, he had a story of great merit in that there were doubts in some of Intel community about aspects of the dossier but he ****ed it up by being a bad journalist. The BBC management then got macho and said they had investigated his story, when they hadn't, and decided to brazen it out. This policy failed somewhat. When you see BBC staff demonstrating they're there for Greg Dyke who resigned as DG, I have yet to see or hear one person there support Gilligan . Understandably so when you remember how he outrageously emailed members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee with questions they should ask , and then outed Kelly as his and Susan Watts' source.
There are other inaccuracies in Marc's post, like the PhD stuff was not in this dossier, but a different one prepared by lackeys in No.10s press office. Hoon Blair and Campbell didn't over-rule junior intel staff, the JIC did that, not the poliicos.
PS- I'm not in agreement with Blue Shift, I love the BBC, but they were wrong on this one .
Comments
I think that you have another agenda here, and an extremist view which only seems to be paralleled to why Scott started the topic in the first place.
I do not agree with your claims, maybe you are right, but i dont see any evidence that supports the extremist view you hold, and i dont see a clamour of people rushing to support it here at AI, or anywhere else in the world.
OK, TELL ME, where do you suggest we get the real, unbiased, untainted, honest, correct, news from.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Bunge, if you want the BBC story explained, I suggest you read what MarcUk says.
THat's essentially where I'm leaning, but if I do I'll be labeled as who knows what for siding against the Blair/Bush conglomerate. I'm waiting for any shred of evidence to balance the scales before I have to agree with what MarcUK is saying.
Originally posted by MarcUK
OK, TELL ME, where do you suggest we get the real, unbiased, untainted, honest, correct, news from.
Fox News?
Regards Iraq and the WoMD. Look at it this way... if you had something you *know* you weren't supposed to have, and you had fourteen months' notice that the cops were coming, would you sit on your hands and wait for them to arrive? But the only soundbite your News media sees fit to repeat over and over is reportage of Kay saying 'they won't be found in Iraq' and 'haven't been any in Iraq since the start of the war'. Note that both can be true, and wholly consistent with them being moved to Syria, but the media couches those bites in reports of the "controversy", leaving the impression that there never were any - even though Kay and others have alluded to them being moved to Syria.
Originally posted by bunge
THat's essentially where I'm leaning, but if I do I'll be labeled as who knows what for siding against the Blair/Bush conglomerate. I'm waiting for any shred of evidence to balance the scales before I have to agree with what MarcUK is saying.
Im not against the war in Iraq, the end result, will in time i am sure be a better solution than leaving Saddam in power. Was the intel correct, it seems not. Did the governments exaggerate, spin, mislead, lie, call it what you want, most probably true. Have over 600 soldiers died, yes. How many innocent iraqi's died? thousands. Has it cost the earth to achieve this. So ... Was it necessary right now, probably not.
Do I like Blair? no. DID i like Blair? yes. Do I like Bush? I didn't, but now I am neutral.
But in the context of the Hutton enquiry, of which I am trying to keep my comments too, it has been largely proved that the BBC made a few mistakes and paid a heavy consequence, while the UK government made alot of far more serious, infact wholly devious errors, (infact, I have a problem with calling them errors, when its pretty clear that much of it was intentional) and were totally cleared.
Hutton was simply not right in terms of the evidence he was presented with, Everything else is a different story, and deserves a different discussion.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
I can only tell you about how I see things from my perspective. And I can tell you with absolute certainly that the "News" that is fed to you by the BBC is nothing more than editorialized spin serving Arab propaganda interests. But this is not unique to the BBC. If you look at the first page of this thread, you will see my post about the IHT as an example of how the news is doctored to serve those interests. The case is very analogous to what's going on at the BBC. Being an Israeli I know the situation first hand. I know the news relating to Israel intimately. And I tell you that 95% of what you are fed by your major "News" media outlets is propagandized.
a) But what has this got to do with the Hutton enquiry?
b) OK, you are an israeli, do you then expect me to believe that you have a neutral, untainted opinion. And there is good reason for that, but the kind of claims you are making, could only be bourne out by someone who holds such a personal connection with the situation. But this is not the truth as the majority of people see it, or the evidence suggests. Do you think I would be better served in world affairs by reading the Israeli press?
Regards Iraq and the WoMD. Look at it this way... if you had something you *know* you weren't supposed to have, and you had fourteen months' notice that the cops were coming, would you sit on your hands and wait for them to arrive? But the only soundbite your News media sees fit to repeat over and over is reportage of Kay saying 'they won't be found in Iraq' and 'haven't been any in Iraq since the start of the war'. Note that both can be true, and wholly consistent with them being moved to Syria, but the media couches those bites in reports of the "controversy", leaving the impression that there never were any - even though Kay and others have alluded to them being moved to Syria.
But that has been reported on the BBC, I've heard it, and Ive heard group discussion on this issue from both sides. Perhaps you would like them to highligh it every 30 seconds, as it serves your agenda. But is there any evidence of this, maybe or is it someones opinion to explain the situation? Probably.
Do you think Blair, or Bush would open up potentially very damaging enquiry's if they has a slightest sniff of evidence that weapons were moved to Syria, Iran, North Korea.
Tell me, as I honestly dont know. Is there a good relationship between Isreal and Syria, or would it be in your personal interests if you could get the US to invade Syria also?
[edit] Oh... i typed 'israel syria' into google. Need i say any more?
Originally posted by MarcUK
Im not against the war in Iraq, the end result, will in time i am sure be a better solution than leaving Saddam in power.
I'm against the war if our suppositions about the pre-war intelligence are correct.
Originally posted by MarcUK
a) But what has this got to do with the Hutton enquiry?
It has a lot to with the Hutton enquiry. If it has to do to with fraud, arrogance, sloppiness, antagonism, abuse of power. Only, unlike their other BBC victims (Israel, being an example I'm intimately familiar with) that are powerless to do anything about it, this time it is their natural ally, the Labour government, who had to suffer thier Arabist agenda. Antagonizing this natural ally, meant that now there was enough political will around to actually, possibly, do something about it. Though like I said earlier, I doubt things will change much, it at all.
Originally posted by MarcUK
b) OK, you are an israeli, do you then expect me to believe that you have a neutral, untainted opinion. And there is good reason for that, but the kind of claims you are making, could only be bourne out by someone who holds such a personal connection with the situation. But this is not the truth as the majority of people see it, or the evidence suggests. Do you think I would be better served in world affairs by reading the Israeli press?
I don't have a problem with BBC competing. If people want to tune in the BBC to get their daily dose of Commie propaganda, I'm all for. But why should the rest of the public be forced to subsidize these pinkos? The same situation is in Israel. You have these pinko mafiosi dominating the "publicly owned" IBA and the rest of us have to suffer, and pay to suffer their pinko agenda.
Originally posted by MarcUK
But that has been reported on the BBC, I've heard it, and Ive heard group discussion on this issue from both sides. Perhaps you would like them to highligh it every 30 seconds, as it serves your agenda. But is there any evidence of this, maybe or is it someones opinion to explain the situation? Probably.
See. You're up on some of their techniques. And they're not that very subtle, are they?
Originally posted by MarcUK
Do you think Blair, or Bush would open up potentially very damaging enquiry's if they has a slightest sniff of evidence that weapons were moved to Syria, Iran, North Korea.
I don't know. Is this good/bad for them? I don't know the answer. Maybe you could tell me?
Originally posted by MarcUK
Tell me, as I honestly dont know. Is there a good relationship between Isreal and Syria, or would it be in your personal interests if you could get the US to invade Syria also?
The US couldn't do it even if it wanted to. I know it. You know it. Syria knows it. So I don't see this as even being a relevant argument. I also suspect this is part of the reason why the Bush administration is keeping a lid on this info for the time being.
Originally posted by MarcUK
[edit] Oh... i typed 'israel syria' into google. Need i say any more?
Hmmm,.. let's see. A BBC fan unaware that there might me some antagonism between Israel and her Arab neighbors - and particularly Syria - who likes to shell the border and upper Galilee towns every time the tourist industry starts to show signs of recovery there. How very amusing. HaHaHa.
Originally posted by MarcUK
I think that you have another agenda here, and an extremist view which only seems to be paralleled to why Scott started the topic in the first place.
LOL.
This is truly Orwellian.
You have a BBC television story where they (uncritically) let George Galloway babble about the injustice of the Hutton report and then had a blurb from some other "expert" talking about how the government's story "didn't sync with what the British public saw on their televisions every night."
The government's story "didn't sync" with what they saw on TV?!?!
Well no shit!!!
There's a truly creepy "1984-ish" quality to this. "The BBC is right because the BBC tells me it's right."
And Yes. It's the same dear friend Galloway who was being bunged loadsamoney by Saddam. Of course he gets airtime on the BBC - he's just a normal middle-of-their-road voice!
And now these pinko fishwrappers are decrying that BBC independence is under threat from the government. One even said that nature programs were under threat. Panic mongering with blatantly false allegations yet again. The main BBC complaint though, is that just a low ranking journalist's report has caused an attack by the government on the BBC. But notice, Blair never attacked the BBC. All that was asked was that the BBC withdraw its false allegations!!
The BBC, top management included, made a very serious allegation, that the Blair government deliberately and knowingly misled parliament and the people, and went to war in Iraq, by falsifying intelligence data. If Hutton had shown that this had been true, then Blair and his cabinet would have had no alternative but to resign collectively. In fact, if I understand it correctly, the PM would have had to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. This would have caused a serious crisis in the UK, of the same magnitude as that of '56 Suez crisis. Moreover, our Koranimals in the ME and in Briton, would have rejoiced, that though Saddam had fallen, they had taken the scalp of Tony Blair. With President Bush being the next target.
The BBC cannot claim innocence. It knew perfectly well what it was up to. Now it is playing the victim. In fact, it is acting just like their beloved Jordyptians. Of course denial is just a river in Egypt.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
And now these pinko fishwrappers....
No need to attack. It gets people banned (hint, hint.)
Originally posted by Blue Shift
The BBC, top management included, made a very serious allegation, that the Blair government deliberately and knowingly misled parliament and the people, and went to war in Iraq, by falsifying intelligence data.
But you still don't acknowledge that even if the BBC was wrong about a point or two, it's claims were still correct.
The BBC then decided to defend its reporter after the govnments spindoctor Campbell complained.
This is the extent of the BBC's errors."
Wrong! Gilligan has himself admitted that this "slip-up" as you put it was an inference of his alone, and he made it sound like Kelly had said it. It was a ridiculous thing to say, he had a story of great merit in that there were doubts in some of Intel community about aspects of the dossier but he ****ed it up by being a bad journalist. The BBC management then got macho and said they had investigated his story, when they hadn't, and decided to brazen it out. This policy failed somewhat. When you see BBC staff demonstrating they're there for Greg Dyke who resigned as DG, I have yet to see or hear one person there support Gilligan . Understandably so when you remember how he outrageously emailed members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee with questions they should ask , and then outed Kelly as his and Susan Watts' source.
There are other inaccuracies in Marc's post, like the PhD stuff was not in this dossier, but a different one prepared by lackeys in No.10s press office. Hoon Blair and Campbell didn't over-rule junior intel staff, the JIC did that, not the poliicos.
PS- I'm not in agreement with Blue Shift, I love the BBC, but they were wrong on this one .