Author Topic: Iraq War Inquiry  (Read 27702 times)

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2010, 11:08:51 PM »
Hi Voodu

Hi PFF!  8)

Quote
Nothing to say on the recently released files into the death of Dr David Kelly? You know, the ones you were oh-so-sure were hiding something?

Sorry - been busy with other cases. I did look over them tho' certainly not with the expectation that any of the contents would necessarily be revelatory. Actually what's more revelatory is what's *not* in them but, as Sing stated, such questions are best directed at the relevant thread. Last I checked no one has provided any answer to my simple question regarding such fundamental investigatory procedures as the names of all those at the scene - y'know the really basic shit covered in any incident report? I'll post some more queries to bounce off your absolute certainty of the government approved line later in that thread.

Meanwhile given the recent releases regarding Iraqi-Iraqi torture ignored by the US/UK, themselves states with pseudo legally approved kidnapping, torture and murder programmes, do you think it'd be better to pursue those abroad first or set an example here? After all when you've shit eating imbeciles like Goldsmith waving the HRA for Iraqi prisoners, in addition to his other war crimes, there's plenty of places to start 8)   

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2010, 11:16:48 PM »
Did Dr Kelly's suicide (and the suspicion of murder) contribute to anti-war feeling?

I'd say it merely validated it. More to the point Gilligan's, allegedly sourced by Kelly, claims were proven completely correct regarding the sexing up of intelligence from Williams original draft onwards. Hence whilst a series of fake inquiries, led by stooges and beneficiaries, may offer succour to those of weak mind and idelogical rot the underpinning warmongering and intention to commit mass murder is blindingly obvious.

PFF

  • What do you reckon?
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2010, 10:26:53 AM »
I'd say it merely validated it. More to the point Gilligan's, allegedly sourced by Kelly, claims were proven completely correct regarding the sexing up of intelligence from Williams original draft onwards. Hence whilst a series of fake inquiries, led by stooges and beneficiaries, may offer succour to those of weak mind and idelogical rot the underpinning warmongering and intention to commit mass murder is blindingly obvious.

But if people suspected murder, which has now been proven not to be the case, then it wasn't valid, was it?

I'm certain part of your argument in the past was 'oh, they're not releasing the files for 70 years, there must be something to hide'. Now we know there wasn't, unless your now saying Cameron is involved in the cover-up?

TheSingularity

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7305
  • A Misanthropical Breed
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2010, 12:22:40 PM »
Did Dr Kelly's suicide (and the suspicion of murder) contribute to anti-war feeling?

Ah, sorry, the way I read your prior post it would seem you would think Tomlinson died at a war protest (it was a banking one as far as I recall).

I think the actual report contributed more to that feeling than his actual death, it just added to the litany of 'goverment lies' associated with the build and persecution of the war at the time.  It obviously still does.

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2010, 03:48:15 PM »
But if people suspected murder, which has now been proven not to be the case, then it wasn't valid, was it?

[OT:] Sophistry. The release of the files has proven nothing above and beyond what was already known - in fact I'd say it merely raises more questions, which you'll find in the correct thread, rather than answers. Regardless of the manner of Kelly's death the original claim still holds true. Namely that a small cabal of traitors connived with a foreign power to illegally invade a sovereign state, subverted UK and international law, repeatedly dressed up minimal intelligence into an immediate threat and dangerously eroded the due process and state procedures that keeps you safe at night. If you believe otherwise I envy your naivety... ;)

Quote
I'm certain part of your argument in the past was 'oh, they're not releasing the files for 70 years, there must be something to hide'. Now we know there wasn't, unless your now saying Cameron is involved in the cover-up?

[OT:] To the best of my knowledge Cameron has had very little to do with the release of the autopsy and toxicology files - in fact they were released purposefully to engender 'confidence in Lord Hutton's report'. If Hutton had any confidence in his own report they'd have been released immediately but, given the number of holes in it, one can only conclude they'd have simply multiplied the number of claims for a properly inquest.
Something you'll find that every single person in this country is legally obligated to regardless of whether or not a two bit solicitor war criminal has an opinion...

PFF

  • What do you reckon?
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2010, 04:02:46 PM »
[OT:] Sophistry. The release of the files has proven nothing above and beyond what was already known - in fact I'd say it merely raises more questions, which you'll find in the correct thread, rather than answers. Regardless of the manner of Kelly's death the original claim still holds true. Namely that a small cabal of traitors connived with a foreign power to illegally invade a sovereign state, subverted UK and international law, repeatedly dressed up minimal intelligence into an immediate threat and dangerously eroded the due process and state procedures that keeps you safe at night. If you believe otherwise I envy your naivety... ;)

Sorry, but that's some spectacular rewriting of history going on there. You did think that the refusal to release the files for 70 years suggested there was some cover-up going on. Now you're telling me it merely proves what you knew all along?
Quote
[OT:] To the best of my knowledge Cameron has had very little to do with the release of the autopsy and toxicology files - in fact they were released purposefully to engender 'confidence in Lord Hutton's report'. If Hutton had any confidence in his own report they'd have been released immediately but, given the number of holes in it, one can only conclude they'd have simply multiplied the number of claims for a properly inquest.
Something you'll find that every single person in this country is legally obligated to regardless of whether or not a two bit solicitor war criminal has an opinion...

What? Now this Government is going against the previous Government in order to prove that said Government was correct all along?

Why?

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2010, 04:27:46 PM »
Sorry, but that's some spectacular rewriting of history going on there. You did think that the refusal to release the files for 70 years suggested there was some cover-up going on. Now you're telling me it merely proves what you knew all along?

Read my post again - what it illustrated was a concerted attempt to reduce further questioning. The release of documents that still fail to bring conclusion to the many questions isn't going to alter that. Neither does it alter the fact that 'regardless of the manner of Kelly's death the original claim still holds true. Namely that a small cabal of traitors connived with a foreign power to illegally invade a sovereign state, subverted UK and international law, repeatedly dressed up minimal intelligence into an immediate threat and dangerously eroded the due process and state procedures'...

Quote
What? Now this Government is going against the previous Government in order to prove that said Government was correct all along? Why?

As that fails to make much sense as a question I'll simply reiterate Sings suggestion that you refer queries regarding Kelly to the other thread. I posted what I believe to be 4 major flaws in the case to it last night - feel free to refer to Hutton and the relevant statutes and then come back to me.

PFF

  • What do you reckon?
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2010, 04:47:28 PM »
Read my post again - what it illustrated was a concerted attempt to reduce further questioning. The release of documents that still fail to bring conclusion to the many questions isn't going to alter that. Neither does it alter the fact that 'regardless of the manner of Kelly's death the original claim still holds true. Namely that a small cabal of traitors connived with a foreign power to illegally invade a sovereign state, subverted UK and international law, repeatedly dressed up minimal intelligence into an immediate threat and dangerously eroded the due process and state procedures'...

No, but does it prove Dr Kelly was murdered?? If not, then clearly part of your 'conspiracy theory' is discredited.
Quote
As that fails to make much sense as a question I'll simply reiterate Sings suggestion that you refer queries regarding Kelly to the other thread. I posted what I believe to be 4 major flaws in the case to it last night - feel free to refer to Hutton and the relevant statutes and then come back to me.

It's quite simple. Why would a rival Government want to cover up the actions of a previous Government?

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2010, 06:04:38 PM »
No, but does it prove Dr Kelly was murdered?? If not, then clearly part of your 'conspiracy theory' is discredited.

Hardly. For the third time, in the wrong thread, the reports still fail to make a solid case for the verdict of suicide. If you wish to discuss this mandatory verdict, dictated by said government, dicuss it there - there's more than enough detail to get you started.

Quote
It's quite simple. Why would a rival Government want to cover up the actions of a previous Government

A veritable multitude I'm afraid - our special relationship (where our troops are squandered for unvoted ideologies you've openly subscribed to), financial profit for UK arms, longer term resource gains, a proper investigation of Parliamentary process up to and including intelligence files provided to the Convservative Party, the list goes on and on...

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2010, 06:17:36 PM »
Meanwhile back on topic that festering stain on the underpants of humanity, disguised as a peace envoy, is to be recalled back before the sham that he asked to be excused from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/26/tony-blair-summoned-back-to-chilcot-inquiry

Our Very Foreign Office are waving a Section 27, to conceal further legal advice from Wood and Chaplin, claiming it might damage 'international relations'  ;)

They included a note from Goldsmith to Blair, marked secret and dated 30 January 2003, saying: "In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday, I thought you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a further decision of the [UN] security council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq."

Goldsmith warned Blair that he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 [the last security council decision on Iraq] is that it does not authorise the use of force without a further determination by the security council".

Goldsmith concluded: "My view remains that a further [UN] decision is required."

A handwritten note, believed to be from David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, warned: "Clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution."

Demonstrating his frustration with Goldsmith, Blair scrawled in the margin: "I just don't understand this." An aide wrote: "Specifically said we did not need further advice [on] this matter."

The following day, 31 January 2003, Blair flew to Washington for a meeting with Bush. Manning records the president ? in a minute previously disclosed ? telling Blair that military action would be taken with or without a second security council resolution and the bombing would begin in mid-March 2003.

The note records Blair's reaction: "The prime minister said he was solidly with the president."

PFF

  • What do you reckon?
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2010, 07:12:55 PM »
Hardly. For the third time, in the wrong thread, the reports still fail to make a solid case for the verdict of suicide. If you wish to discuss this mandatory verdict, dictated by said government, dicuss it there - there's more than enough detail to get you started.
*sigh. No it just said everything you suspected it wouldn't say. Now you're telling me the things it didn't say are the things you knew it wouldn't say all along.

Quote
A veritable multitude I'm afraid - our special relationship (where our troops are squandered for unvoted ideologies you've openly subscribed to), financial profit for UK arms, longer term resource gains, a proper investigation of Parliamentary process up to and including intelligence files provided to the Convservative Party, the list goes on and on...

Yeah and Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator hellbent on accumulating WMD.  The fact that you weren't correct about the contents of the report, sugguests it's less likely you're wrong* about the motives for war.

ETA *Correct. My bad.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 07:34:51 PM by PFF »

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2010, 07:37:06 PM »
*sigh. No it just said everything you suspected it wouldn't say. Now you're telling me the things it didn't say are the things you knew it wouldn't say all along.

OT again - I'm surprised it's taken three posts for you to actually grasp that point. The main issues are raised in the relevant thread and, if you actually want to take up discussion on them, let's do it there eg: how well versed are you in the standard medical phenomena of transverse arterial wounds? Hunt's report clearly states that a *minor* artery, which would've almost certainly have closed due to vasoconstriction, was the main cause of bleed out and, when he cannot properly explain this, falls back on some sketchy notions of heart disease.

The main radial wasn't touched and, given that the toxicology doesn't technically support Hunt's claims, I fail to agree wth your wholehearted support for something, given your protestations to the contrary, you clearly have little grasp of. I say 'protestations' as there's been little resembling 'argument' from you thus far  :)

Quote
Yeah and Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator hellbent on accumulating WMD.  The fact that you weren't correct about the contents of the report, sugguests it's less likely you're wrong about the motives for war.

I'm not sure exactly why you're pursuing such a recursive point - you're suggesting that, if the autopsy or toxicology had contained some form of unknown revelation, that they'd still have been released. PMSL ;D Indeed it's such pursuit of double negatives, and indeed doublespeak, that allowed a small cabal of traitors to launch the biggest terrorist attack of the 21st century on the sovereign nation of Iraq using open allegations that could never have been proven or disproven. Incidentally whether Iraq was headed by Saddam Hussein, Uncle Tom Cobbler or Satan himself is totally fucking irrelevant - it's clear, as if it wasn't already, from the released comms that bLiar (a two bit solicitor) over-ruled all legal advice including that of the Attorney General (a three bit solicitor) in order to further the aims of another nation. 

If you wish to actually discuss the Kelly case then, as has been suggested, take it to the relevant thread.

Voodu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2010, 07:05:39 PM »
http://www.iraqinquirydigest.org/?page_id=690

Pretty good summation by Ames of the misrepresentation of the the 'Iraqi Threat'

A quick reminder of the attempts to hoodwink:

http://warisacrime.org/node/838

"we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq" - Ricketts


MadWorld

  • Guest
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2010, 09:17:17 AM »
"we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq" - Ricketts

There was propaganda from UK and US about 'you should see what we see' and 'we can't tell you more because of protecting security sources' - and knowing anything they did have was 'dodgy'.

e.g. "I cannot tell you everything I know but what I can share with you is deeply troubling," said Mr Powell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2729731.stm

And this from Bliar's Iraq Dossier; "So I believe people will understand why the Agencies
cannot be specific about the sources, which have formed the judgements in this
document, and why we cannot publish everything we know".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/pdf/iraqdossier.pdf
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 09:27:41 AM by MadWorld »

oake

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6495
  • 6f616b65
Re: Iraq War Inquiry
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2010, 06:28:57 PM »
A related issue, from a Guardian article:

War crimes charges against military interrogators would put MoD on trial

Quote
Possible charges, the court heard, included "committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" ? a war crime under article 8 of the act.

But as the Guardian reported last month, men and women who undergo training as interrogators at the Intelligence Corps headquarters in Chicksands, Bedfordshire, are instructed to do just this. Among the training material upon which last month's report was based are PowerPoint slides and training manuals telling trainee interrogators that they should aim to provoke humiliation, insecurity, disorientation, exhaustion, anxiety and fear. The material also suggests how this can be achieved.