Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well that was revenge for the Hutton enquiry. The whole idea that Sadam had WMD capabilites that could treatern GB interests immentiently was a completely wrong. The Joint Intellignce Council screwed it up, Blair made assertions he could not back up with evidence and Russia/France et al were the only ones to keep their heads on the issue of WMD's. Any thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Well that was revenge for the Hutton enquiry. The whole idea that Sadam had WMD capabilites that could treatern GB interests immentiently was a completely wrong. The Joint Intellignce Council screwed it up, Blair made assertions he could not back up with evidence and Russia/France et al were the only ones to keep their heads on the issue of WMD's. Any thoughts?
    i havent had the privilege of watching it. are these the assertions of the program or your accepted truths based upon its objectivity?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i havent had the privilege of watching it. are these the assertions of the program or your accepted truths based upon its objectivity?
    no, there was quite alot of evidence, the fact that evidence agreed with views i hold must be a sheer concidence
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    no, there was quite alot of evidence, the fact that evidence agreed with views i hold must be a sheer concidence
    Having evidence for your viewpoint doesn't make it right. Given sufficient desire and resources, it is possible to prove almost anything by simply ignoring anything which disagrees with your viewpoint. This may well be such a case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Having evidence for your viewpoint doesn't make it right. Given sufficient desire and resources, it is possible to prove almost anything by simply ignoring anything which disagrees with your viewpoint. This may well be such a case.
    funny that, have you been studying from the Blair guide of perscuation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    funny that, have you been studying from the Blair guide of perscuation?
    No. It's something to which I've been extremely alert to for a number of years, ever since I heard a history teacher comment on an essay entitloed "Did Disraeli Have Principles?". The student had answered affirmatively, providing a wealth of evidence showing Disraeli acting along a certain set of principles; he nevertheless got a very poor mark because he'd achieved his conclusive result by simply ignoring the many other instances where Disraeli had acted on a differnet set of principles, or with no apparent principles at all. Panaorama appears to have done the same, though it is likely Blair's also followed this process, at least partially.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    Panaorama appears to have done the same
    did you see the programme?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    did you see the programme?
    Nope. I'm going on your summary. Hence "seems". Nevertheless, any programme which fails to point out that there was a great deal of intelligence sending out a not altogether clear message is being selective in its information gathering.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here is a summary
    And after your comments about oposing things on principles (namely yesterday the security fence) and the fact the BBC knows its got to get its facts right if it is to be called a state station after the Hutton Enquiry I would reconsider your postion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Here is a [size=2]summary
    Thanks


    (Original post by Speciez99)
    And after your comments about oposing things on principles (namely yesterday the security fence) and the fact the BBC knows its got to get its facts right if it is to be called a state station after the Hutton Enquiry I would reconsider your postion.
    I'm not "opposing things" on principle; my principal is to view very critically a subjective report, playing to a certain audience. Furthremore, I've not accused the BBC of fabrications, or lies. I'm sure it's facts are right. However, the conclusions you form depend on which facts you select and I hyopthesised the BBC selected certain facts, and omitted others, to fit its viewpoint. What certainly didn't help me comment fairly on the programme is your hugely exagerated summary of it, which seems inaccurate in the extreme when compared to the BBC summary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Here is a summary
    And after your comments about oposing things on principles (namely yesterday the security fence) and the fact the BBC knows its got to get its facts right if it is to be called a state station after the Hutton Enquiry I would reconsider your postion.
    they cant even get their own article straight. 29.4 secs to be precise...

    - In his Iraq dossier, the Prime Minister said he believed the intelligence showed "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons.

    intepreted: that the INTELLIGENCE, if we take such to be true, shows that 'beyond doubt', Saddam was producing chemical and biological weapons.

    - When the JIC reported that intelligence was "limited" and based mainly on "assessment", Mr Blair said the matter was "beyond doubt."

    intepreted: that the JIC reiterated the strength and reliability of any intelligence, but Mr.Blair said the MATTER, that Saddam was indeed producing chemical and biological weapons, was "beyond doubt"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "In his first television interview Dr Brian Jones, explains that misjudgements were made on the basis of sparse intelligence by senior people, rather than the intelligence community as a whole, and that the Joint Intelligence Committee should accept responsibility.

    In "A Failure of Intelligence", the same Panorama team that reported on Lord Hutton's Inquiry now sets out what the intelligence services and Mr Blair knew, when they each knew it - and some of what he left out.

    so, basically going back over old ground with the benefit of hindsight and a slightly emotional British public..nice move.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    29.4 secs to be precise...

    - In his Iraq dossier, the Prime Minister said he believed the intelligence showed "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons.

    intepreted: that the INTELLIGENCE, if we take such to be true, shows that 'beyond doubt', Saddam was producing chemical and biological weapons.

    - When the JIC reported that intelligence was "limited" and based mainly on "assessment", Mr Blair said the matter was "beyond doubt."

    intepreted: that the JIC reiterated the strength and reliability of any intelligence, but Mr.Blair said the MATTER, that Saddam was indeed producing chemical and biological weapons, was "beyond doubt"

    whats it to be? they cant even get their own article straight.
    the JIC didnt have any evidence that showed that the matter was beyond doubt tho, they had no definate evidence on if sadam was producing weapons, where he was producing them, what types he was producing, where they were being stored, the extent of his stockpiles, ect. That is what is meant by limited and Downing street knew this which is why they sent out 2 requests for more evidence (usual apparently) to try and fill the dossier. On the next day apparently M16 produced evidence that was not show to experts in other departments and has since been withdrawn as creditable.

    What ever your doubts of the BBC's standard of presentation, I posted this up as a interest raiser. No doubt the Butler report which is released tomorrow with have implications on this debate. It will be interesting to see with any assessment the BBC has made and if not why not. Till then I personally will leave this matter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    the JIC didnt have any evidence that showed that the matter was beyond doubt tho, they had no definate evidence on if sadam was producing weapons, where he was producing them, what types he was producing, where they were being stored, the extent of his stockpiles, ect. That is what is meant by limited and Downing street knew this which is why they sent out 2 requests for more evidence (usual apparently)
    i was merely pointing out the inconsistency of the BBC. from my memory, Blair said that the "intelligence showed beyond doubt". that is not the same as affirming its cast-iron as the BBC then goes on to suggest.

    if its usual, where are we concerned that the government were making special efforts?

    to try and fill the dossier. On the next day apparently M16 produced evidence that was not show to experts in other departments and has since been withdrawn as creditable.

    What ever your doubts of the BBC's standard of presentation, I posted this up as a interest raiser. No doubt the Butler report which is released tomorrow with have implications on this debate. It will be interesting to see with any assessment the BBC has made and if not why not. Till then I personally will leave this matter.
    i agree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Surely the whole WMDs debate is just going to go on and on cos, you cant prove a negative, so even if they are never found there can always be the,' they're hidden in a bunker in the desert argument.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.