Western states block Russia’s initiatives to investigate Syria chemical attack

[dufus]

5 minutes ago, steven36 said:

. I dont even believe much of my own countries news ether   because there bad about posting  stuff a 100 sites without even checking the facts because we have freedom of press so it;s nothing personal  I  like people from all countries . But posting news from sources that are known  too never check facts is senseless regardless of were it .is from

"I dont even believe much of my own countries news ether"

we agree on something not only you country every country individual make own mind up now have you any thought on why the usa uk france most west are blocking an proper investigation into the alleged gas attack in idlib

[steven36]

13 minutes ago, dufus said:

"I dont even believe much of my own countries news ether"

we agree on something not only you country every country individual make own mind up now have you any thought on why the usa uk france most west are blocking an proper investigation into the alleged gas attack in idlib

I stop watching the news for years  before  because i found a lot of it too be lies .. From after the 2nd  IRAQ war  tell like i came back here in 2014  I did not keep up with the News and  was more happier that way . The forum I was on before I just posted software updates.  So It don;t matter too me if the world news gets posted or not there is nothing we as everyday people can do too change the way things are and our governments have been screwing everything up for 1000s of  years . So someones opinion on the internet will not make a difference. . It would take a uprising in the streets a civil war to make a difference . News is just words true are not. War is real .

[dufus]

MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”

Posted on April 12, 2017 by Robert Barsocchini

One of the world’s leading rocket scientists, national security advisor and MIT Professor Theodore Postol, who has won awards for debunking claims about missile defense systems and has been a scientific adviser to the US Chief of Naval Operations, says today in a nine-page report that a four-page report released by the Trump administration yesterday intended to blame the recent chemical attack in Syria on the Syrian government “does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack”.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

stay of street read this instead maybe he real

[Sylence]

9 hours ago, dMog said:

well aside from the fact that ASSAD  actually dropped, has dropped chemical and will continue to drop weapons on his own people is now secondary to the truth I really do not see why there should be a problem with Russia "investigating " this incedent....not to mention Russian air force  themselves dropping a bomb on the hospital a few hours later and Assad claiming that the "victims" were not really hurt..and also Assad claiming the victims were all acting for the cameras...yea no real issues at all

 

Bullshit pouring down again lol 

 

@WALLONN7 no bro with brainwashed old people like him nah nothing will stay calm.

3 hours ago, steven36 said:

LOL  both sides of the story should be told  problem is you trying to post hate messages about my country and pass it off as news it was bad enough when we had another member who use too post them in the chat bar but you try pass it off as news. you spread a one sided message  , this is the internet  were people can look up some news  to fit there own agenda  be it politics , software  ,tech or whatever . It's  like YouTube  you can even go  and  hear what the KKK  has too say and people who say Hitler  is great  .You should not  believe everything you read on the internet and take it for face value just because its posted.

 

it's not hate message about your country, it's the truth. it's not our fault that your country does stupid things that make people hate it.

[dMog]

and only countries that you live in  or are ruled by Putin and Assad do nothing whatsoever wrong. and I forgot they are complete utopias and dissent of government and police are welcome and encouraged...give it a break...what hypocrisy from you as always on these matters...I do  not think even you believe yourself in this stuff,,, again the original post should never have neem allowed on this site as stuff like that ALWAYS ends in this...the day you personally can stand on the street corner and say your leader have done something wrong  and not get yourself arrested is the day you can get back me on anything

[clubhouse]

10 hours ago, dufus said:

UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops

• Carla Del Ponte said UN Commission investigating war crimes in Syria has 'strong, concrete suspicions' that rebels used chemical weapons
• Her remarks contradict statements by the U.S. and UK which said intelligence indicated Syrian soldiers used the weapons
• Today fighting continued across Syria as rebels advanced on a northern airbase and shot down helicopter in the east

By DAMIEN GAYLE and MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE

PUBLISHED: 14:18 BST, 6 May 2013 | UPDATED: 07:31 BST, 7 May 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320223/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-carrying-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html

history repeating

I think we need to remember that "accuse" and "prove" are two entirely different things,

10 hours ago, dufus said:

UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops

• Carla Del Ponte said UN Commission investigating war crimes in Syria has 'strong, concrete suspicions' that rebels used chemical weapons
• Her remarks contradict statements by the U.S. and UK which said intelligence indicated Syrian soldiers used the weapons
• Today fighting continued across Syria as rebels advanced on a northern airbase and shot down helicopter in the east

By DAMIEN GAYLE and MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE

PUBLISHED: 14:18 BST, 6 May 2013 | UPDATED: 07:31 BST, 7 May 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320223/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-carrying-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html

history repeating

I think we need to remember that "accuse" and "prove" are two entirely different things,

[pc71520]

Green Zone (2010)

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq proved to be Covert and Faulty intelligence.

A fully-fabricated story used as an excuse for war.

 

-Same pattern of Lies.

-Same methods of Brainwashing.

 

As far as C.N.N. and B.B.C.,

they have proved themselves

when it comes to misinformation...

 

[steven36]

2 hours ago, clubhouse said:

I think we need to remember that "accuse" and "prove" are two entirely different things,

 

It's not a matter of belief but of incontrovertible proof:

 

Quote

PARIS – France says it will provide proof within days that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime carried out the April 4 chemical attack in Syria that killed at least 90 people.

 

 

Sarin is a nerve agent banned under worldwide law which attacks the body’s central nervous system, causing nausea, drooling, difficulty breathing, blurred vision and loss of control of bodily functions. Inquiries confirmed the attacks at Ghouta back in August 2013 released sarin on a relatively large scale, but the perpetrators have never been formally identified.

 

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has said “incontrovertible” test results by its team of experts already probing the incident had shown sarin gas or a similar substance was used. The agency, based in The Hague, Netherlands, is expected to issue a report within two weeks.

 

Earlier testing on victims’ bodies by British scientists and the Turkish Health Ministry found evidence of exposure to both sarin and chlorine gas, which most of the global community believes occurred during a deliberate attack on the rebel-held village by the Syrian regime.

 

http://pppfocus.com/2017/04/23/syrian-regime-used-sarin-or-similar-chemical-agent-in-idlib-attack-watchdog/

 

[clubhouse]

30 minutes ago, steven36 said:

It's not a matter of belief but of incontrovertible proof:

 

http://pppfocus.com/2017/04/23/syrian-regime-used-sarin-or-similar-chemical-agent-in-idlib-attack-watchdog/

 

I don't put anyone on ignore however, I'm not going to bother with your meaningless diatribe on any subject here....Carry on ranting :)

[steven36]

17 minutes ago, clubhouse said:

I don't put anyone on ignore however, I'm not going to bother with your meaningless diatribe on any subject here....Carry on ranting :)

Denial is not just  a river in Egypt , France says they will provide proof  with in days  the Netherlands have proof as well  and the Brits and Turks have proof of it happening before. 

 

Quote

 

France Says to Provide Proof on Syria Government Chemical Weapons Use

 

PARIS (Reuters) - French intelligence services will provide proof in the coming days that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemical weapons in an attack on April 4, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Wednesday.

 

"There is an investigation underway (by) the French intelligence services and military intelligence ... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Ayrault told LCP television.

 

"We have elements that will enable us to show that the regime knowingly used chemical weapons," he said.

 

(Reporting by John Irish; Editing by Ingrid Melander)

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-04-19/france-says-to-provide-proof-on-syria-government-chemical-weapons-use

 

[clubhouse]

Complete doughnut^^^ I was questioning the post that suggested it was Syrian REBELS that carried out the awful attacks!

[dufus]

On 24/04/2017 at 2:30 PM, pc71520 said:

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq proved to be Covert and Faulty intelligence.

A fully-fabricated story used as an excuse for war.

[dufus]

The betrayal of Dr David Kelly, 10 years on

Andrew Gilligan, the journalist at the centre of the 'dodgy dossier’ row, reflects on the shocking facts that have emerged since Dr David Kelly’s death

Dr David Kelly: it is 10 years since the death of the weapons inspector who was caught in a row about the justification for the Iraq war Photo: PA

 

By Andrew Gilligan

7:00AM BST 21 Jul 2013

 

I still remember, of course, how I heard about David Kelly’s death. It started with an early-morning phone call from my friend Mick Smith, then defence correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. Dr Kelly had gone missing, and the police were looking for a body.

Even then, I couldn’t really believe that he had died. Surely it was some sort of misunderstanding? Perhaps he’d just decided to go off for a few days and would turn up in some hotel, à la Stephen Fry? As soon as I got to the BBC, the director of news, Richard Sambrook, called me to his office. While I had been on the way in, he said, not sounding like he believed it himself, Dr Kelly’s body had been found, and it looked like suicide. He’d taken painkilling tablets and slashed one of his wrists.

If Sambrook sounded shaken, it was nothing to how I sounded. He had to get me a glass of water to calm me down. But as well as being upset, I was very, very surprised. I hadn’t known David all that well, but he didn’t strike me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing.

He was quite used to confrontation and pressure: he’d been a weapons inspector in Iraq, for goodness’ sake. I thought his famous grilling by the Foreign Affairs Committee had been distasteful, and symptomatic of the committee’s stupidity, but it hadn’t been that bad. And the affair was tailing off. Politics was breaking for the summer, both the BBC and I had refused to confirm or deny whether David was my source, and the battle between us and Downing Street had essentially reached stalemate.

What a lot I didn’t know. Even now, almost precisely 10 years since David Kelly’s last journey, we are still learning just how extraordinary and inexcusable the behaviour of our rulers was – both towards him, and in the wider cause, defending the Iraq war, for which he was outed and died. On July 18 2003, I did not consider myself a shockable person; I was an experienced, sceptical journalist with, I thought, a realistic idea of how politicians, intelligence officers and civil servants behaved. But over the months and years that followed, my views, and those of most of the country, changed. To borrow the famous words of David Astor over Suez, we had not realised that our government was capable of such folly and such crookedness.

Related Articles

• Give your BBQ burgers some class 

  18 Jul 2013

• Children go free on buses 

  19 Jul 2013

• Pet Shop Boys: the story behind Electric 

  16 Jul 2013

• Dr David Kelly’s friend pleads for conspiracy theories to end 

  16 Jul 2013

You probably remember Dr Kelly’s main contention, which became the centrepiece of my BBC story – that a government dossier making the case against Iraq had been “transformed” at the behest of Downing Street and Alastair Campbell “to make it sexier”, with the “classic example” being the insertion in the final week of a claim, based on a single source, that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction could be deployed within 45 minutes. The intelligence services were unhappy about the 45-minute claim, David said. They believed it was unreliable. In the first of my 18 broadcasts on the story, I added a claim, mistakenly attributing it to David, that the Government probably knew the 45-minute claim was wrong.

What we now know is that at precisely the same moment as the Government was launching hysterical attacks on the BBC and on me for reporting this, Whitehall had quietly conceded that it was true. In July 2003, literally as David Kelly was outed, MI6 secretly withdrew the 45-minute intelligence as unreliable and badly-sourced.

What we now know is that according to Major General Michael Laurie, the head of the Defence Intelligence Staff at the time of the dossier, “we could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was clear to me that pressure was being applied to the Joint Intelligence Committee and its drafters. Every fact was managed to make the dossier as strong as possible. The final statements in the dossier reached beyond the conclusions intelligence assessments would normally draw from such facts.”

What we now know is that, according to an MI6 officer working on the dossier, the 45-minute claim was “based in part on wishful thinking” and was not “fully validated”. Another MI6 officer said that “there were from the outset concerns” in the intelligence services about “the extent to which the intelligence could support some of the judgments that were being made”.

What we now know is that on September 17 and 18 2002, a week before the dossier was published, Alastair Campbell sent memos to its author, Sir John Scarlett, saying that he and Tony Blair were “worried” that on Saddam’s nuclear capability the dossier gave the (accurate) impression that “there’s nothing much to worry about”. On September 19, Campbell emailed Scarlett again, suggesting the insertion of a totally false claim that, in certain circumstances, Saddam could produce nuclear weapons in as little as a year. This fabrication duly appeared in the dossier.

What we now know is that in his September 17 memo, Campbell suggested 15 other changes to the text of the dossier. Most were accepted; their effect was to harden the document’s language from possibility to probability, or probability to certainty. Campbell lied to Parliament about the content of this memo, giving the Foreign Affairs Committee an altered copy which omitted his comments on the 45-minute claim and played down his interventions on most of the other issues.

And what we now know is that, contrary to his campaigning certainty at the time, Blair admits in his memoirs that he privately saw the case for war against Iraq as “finely balanced”. No wonder a little tipping of the scales was needed – or, as Blair also put it in his book, “politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand that it be done”.

We knew nothing of this then. Indeed, in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, described the 45-minute claim, straight-faced, as “a piece of well-sourced intelligence”, two months after his own service had discredited it. Despite his key role as Dearlove’s military counterpart, General Laurie was never called to Hutton at all; his explosive statement, and that of the two MI6 people, emerged only in 2011, at the Chilcot inquiry.

I don’t blame you if you knew nothing of all this until now; most of it, by happy coincidence, came out only long after public attention had moved on, and the government could no longer be damaged.

But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.

Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.

Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The FAC, by the way, didn’t want to question him – its inquiry had finished and its report had already been published – but Downing Street forced it to hold a special hearing anyway. The day before, for several hours, he was intensively coached in the need to “f---” me. Under great pressure, he blurted an untruth in the glare of the TV lights; an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.

Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing it must have been terrifying, even if it was almost certainly unfounded. Understanding that is one reason why I am certain that he did indeed kill himself, for all some people’s obsession to the contrary.

They’ll hate this comparison, but there’s an odd symmetry between the Kelly conspiracy theorists and Mr Blair. In both cases, their convictions seem to require them to fit the facts into unusual shapes. For Dr Kelly to have been murdered, as the pathologist’s report makes clear, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they had sawn away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly’s study, so they’d also have had to burgle his house to get it.

The even more telling question, though, is what motive anyone could have had for murder. Even if you believe the British government goes round bumping off its employees in cold blood, killing David Kelly would simply not have been in its interest. It was guaranteed to create a scandal and a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known. There’s no need to claim that David Kelly was murdered; his suicide is scandal enough.

Ten years on, there are some Groundhog Day elements. Over successive crises, the BBC’s management has been as incompetent as ever. Politicians still appear to think that set-piece inquiries are worth the paper they’re written on – despite the evidence from Lord Hutton’s and Sir John Chilcot’s efforts on Iraq, the latter entering its fifth year with few signs of a report.

Whatever Chilcot may eventually say, the debate on the war appears to have been decided. Few would now dispute the dossier was sexed up. But there is still a fascinating degree of dispute about David Kelly. I have sometimes asked myself why the self-inflicted death of one scientist should matter to us as much as, if not more than, the violent deaths of perhaps 120,000 Iraqis (535 of them this month alone, by the way – so much for making Iraq safe for democracy).

I think it’s partly because there may still be some excuses for what the Government did in Iraq. They expected it to be like Kosovo: the operation would succeed, the troops be welcomed and the predictions of doom confounded. They expected, too, that a few barrels of WMD would probably be found that could have been cast as a threat. Even the charge of “lying” about those weapons is not quite cast-iron: I prefer the charge I made, of sexing-up, or exaggeration. I and most others always thought Iraq had something in the WMD line; the exaggeration lay in the fact that it was nowhere near threatening enough to justify a war.

But there are no excuses for what the government did to the BBC and to Dr Kelly. He was outed to further a series of denials which we can, quite plainly, call lies. An explanation, if not an excuse, may rest in Campbell’s mental state: even Blair, in his memoirs, called him a “crazy person” who by that stage “had probably gone over the edge”. But that doesn’t explain the really scary part: how the machinery of government, in a mature democracy such as Britain’s, allowed itself to be captured by someone in that state.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief responsible for the dossier, was once asked what he thought of me. Flatteringly, he said: “I wouldn’t want you to print my views on Andrew Gilligan.” My own views on Sir Richard, Sir John Scarlett and the other distinguished knights of Iraq who got too close to New Labour are perfectly printable: they failed catastrophically in their duty, bringing their professions, their services – and their country – into deep, possibly permanent, disrepute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

[steven36]

On undefined at 5:45 PM, clubhouse said:

Complete doughnut^^^ I was questioning the post that suggested it was Syrian REBELS that carried out the awful attacks!

In the Gulf war in IRAQ even though the never found  chemical weapons still the fact remained they were some kind of chemicals  they used on US and British  Solders  in the 1st war because many came home really sick from it and  they said then Saddam Hussein took and  moved  all the chemical weapons to Syria . So it makes a lot of sense that they have them and lots of them but this don't mean they wont hand them over  too some other country  too hide them like  Saddam Hussein  did. So really they may never be able too find them in the end even if they had permission too look .

 

Are Syria's Chemical Weapons Iraq's Missing WMD? Obama's Director of Intelligence Thought So.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/are-syrias-chemical-weapons-iraqs-missing-wmd-obamas-director-of-intelligence-thought-so./article/2007610

I was not born yesterday and i know chemical weapons are a reality I remember back when we even feared to open stuff up in the mail because some very evil people were putting anthrax in the  mail . You may not  remember back then but  I do.

[Sylence]

2 hours ago, dufus said:

The betrayal of Dr David Kelly, 10 years on

Andrew Gilligan, the journalist at the centre of the 'dodgy dossier’ row, reflects on the shocking facts that have emerged since Dr David Kelly’s death

Dr David Kelly: it is 10 years since the death of the weapons inspector who was caught in a row about the justification for the Iraq war Photo: PA

 

By Andrew Gilligan

7:00AM BST 21 Jul 2013

 

I still remember, of course, how I heard about David Kelly’s death. It started with an early-morning phone call from my friend Mick Smith, then defence correspondent of The Daily Telegraph. Dr Kelly had gone missing, and the police were looking for a body.

Even then, I couldn’t really believe that he had died. Surely it was some sort of misunderstanding? Perhaps he’d just decided to go off for a few days and would turn up in some hotel, à la Stephen Fry? As soon as I got to the BBC, the director of news, Richard Sambrook, called me to his office. While I had been on the way in, he said, not sounding like he believed it himself, Dr Kelly’s body had been found, and it looked like suicide. He’d taken painkilling tablets and slashed one of his wrists.

If Sambrook sounded shaken, it was nothing to how I sounded. He had to get me a glass of water to calm me down. But as well as being upset, I was very, very surprised. I hadn’t known David all that well, but he didn’t strike me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing.

He was quite used to confrontation and pressure: he’d been a weapons inspector in Iraq, for goodness’ sake. I thought his famous grilling by the Foreign Affairs Committee had been distasteful, and symptomatic of the committee’s stupidity, but it hadn’t been that bad. And the affair was tailing off. Politics was breaking for the summer, both the BBC and I had refused to confirm or deny whether David was my source, and the battle between us and Downing Street had essentially reached stalemate.

What a lot I didn’t know. Even now, almost precisely 10 years since David Kelly’s last journey, we are still learning just how extraordinary and inexcusable the behaviour of our rulers was – both towards him, and in the wider cause, defending the Iraq war, for which he was outed and died. On July 18 2003, I did not consider myself a shockable person; I was an experienced, sceptical journalist with, I thought, a realistic idea of how politicians, intelligence officers and civil servants behaved. But over the months and years that followed, my views, and those of most of the country, changed. To borrow the famous words of David Astor over Suez, we had not realised that our government was capable of such folly and such crookedness.

Related Articles

• Give your BBQ burgers some class 

  18 Jul 2013

• Children go free on buses 

  19 Jul 2013

• Pet Shop Boys: the story behind Electric 

  16 Jul 2013

• Dr David Kelly’s friend pleads for conspiracy theories to end 

  16 Jul 2013

You probably remember Dr Kelly’s main contention, which became the centrepiece of my BBC story – that a government dossier making the case against Iraq had been “transformed” at the behest of Downing Street and Alastair Campbell “to make it sexier”, with the “classic example” being the insertion in the final week of a claim, based on a single source, that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction could be deployed within 45 minutes. The intelligence services were unhappy about the 45-minute claim, David said. They believed it was unreliable. In the first of my 18 broadcasts on the story, I added a claim, mistakenly attributing it to David, that the Government probably knew the 45-minute claim was wrong.

What we now know is that at precisely the same moment as the Government was launching hysterical attacks on the BBC and on me for reporting this, Whitehall had quietly conceded that it was true. In July 2003, literally as David Kelly was outed, MI6 secretly withdrew the 45-minute intelligence as unreliable and badly-sourced.

What we now know is that according to Major General Michael Laurie, the head of the Defence Intelligence Staff at the time of the dossier, “we could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was clear to me that pressure was being applied to the Joint Intelligence Committee and its drafters. Every fact was managed to make the dossier as strong as possible. The final statements in the dossier reached beyond the conclusions intelligence assessments would normally draw from such facts.”

What we now know is that, according to an MI6 officer working on the dossier, the 45-minute claim was “based in part on wishful thinking” and was not “fully validated”. Another MI6 officer said that “there were from the outset concerns” in the intelligence services about “the extent to which the intelligence could support some of the judgments that were being made”.

What we now know is that on September 17 and 18 2002, a week before the dossier was published, Alastair Campbell sent memos to its author, Sir John Scarlett, saying that he and Tony Blair were “worried” that on Saddam’s nuclear capability the dossier gave the (accurate) impression that “there’s nothing much to worry about”. On September 19, Campbell emailed Scarlett again, suggesting the insertion of a totally false claim that, in certain circumstances, Saddam could produce nuclear weapons in as little as a year. This fabrication duly appeared in the dossier.

What we now know is that in his September 17 memo, Campbell suggested 15 other changes to the text of the dossier. Most were accepted; their effect was to harden the document’s language from possibility to probability, or probability to certainty. Campbell lied to Parliament about the content of this memo, giving the Foreign Affairs Committee an altered copy which omitted his comments on the 45-minute claim and played down his interventions on most of the other issues.

And what we now know is that, contrary to his campaigning certainty at the time, Blair admits in his memoirs that he privately saw the case for war against Iraq as “finely balanced”. No wonder a little tipping of the scales was needed – or, as Blair also put it in his book, “politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand that it be done”.

We knew nothing of this then. Indeed, in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, described the 45-minute claim, straight-faced, as “a piece of well-sourced intelligence”, two months after his own service had discredited it. Despite his key role as Dearlove’s military counterpart, General Laurie was never called to Hutton at all; his explosive statement, and that of the two MI6 people, emerged only in 2011, at the Chilcot inquiry.

I don’t blame you if you knew nothing of all this until now; most of it, by happy coincidence, came out only long after public attention had moved on, and the government could no longer be damaged.

But the government knew – and this is what makes its behaviour towards the BBC and David Kelly so incredible. He came forward to his bosses as my source under a promise that his identity would be kept secret, but was effectively given up to the world after Campbell, in his words, decided to “open a flank on the BBC” to distract attention from his difficulties over the dossier.

Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, the FAC, was inquiring into the dossier. After it failed to denounce me to Campbell’s satisfaction, he confided to his diary that “the biggest thing needed was the source out”. That afternoon, on Downing Street’s orders, Ministry of Defence press officers announced that a source had come forward, handed out clues allowing anyone with Google to guess who he was, then kindly confirmed it to any reporter who guessed right. One newspaper was allowed to put more than 20 names to the MoD before it got to Dr Kelly’s.

Once outed, Dr Kelly was openly belittled by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. The FAC, by the way, didn’t want to question him – its inquiry had finished and its report had already been published – but Downing Street forced it to hold a special hearing anyway. The day before, for several hours, he was intensively coached in the need to “f---” me. Under great pressure, he blurted an untruth in the glare of the TV lights; an untruth which, on the morning of his death, his bosses told him they would investigate.

Dr Kelly defined himself by his work and his reputation for integrity. The fear of losing it must have been terrifying, even if it was almost certainly unfounded. Understanding that is one reason why I am certain that he did indeed kill himself, for all some people’s obsession to the contrary.

They’ll hate this comparison, but there’s an odd symmetry between the Kelly conspiracy theorists and Mr Blair. In both cases, their convictions seem to require them to fit the facts into unusual shapes. For Dr Kelly to have been murdered, as the pathologist’s report makes clear, it would have needed someone to force 29 pills down his throat, making him swallow them without protest. Then they would have had to get him to sit on the ground without any restraint, making no attempt to defend himself, while they had sawn away at his wrist with a knife. That knife, by the way, came from the desk drawer in Dr Kelly’s study, so they’d also have had to burgle his house to get it.

The even more telling question, though, is what motive anyone could have had for murder. Even if you believe the British government goes round bumping off its employees in cold blood, killing David Kelly would simply not have been in its interest. It was guaranteed to create a scandal and a crisis, as anyone with an iota of sense would have known. There’s no need to claim that David Kelly was murdered; his suicide is scandal enough.

Ten years on, there are some Groundhog Day elements. Over successive crises, the BBC’s management has been as incompetent as ever. Politicians still appear to think that set-piece inquiries are worth the paper they’re written on – despite the evidence from Lord Hutton’s and Sir John Chilcot’s efforts on Iraq, the latter entering its fifth year with few signs of a report.

Whatever Chilcot may eventually say, the debate on the war appears to have been decided. Few would now dispute the dossier was sexed up. But there is still a fascinating degree of dispute about David Kelly. I have sometimes asked myself why the self-inflicted death of one scientist should matter to us as much as, if not more than, the violent deaths of perhaps 120,000 Iraqis (535 of them this month alone, by the way – so much for making Iraq safe for democracy).

I think it’s partly because there may still be some excuses for what the Government did in Iraq. They expected it to be like Kosovo: the operation would succeed, the troops be welcomed and the predictions of doom confounded. They expected, too, that a few barrels of WMD would probably be found that could have been cast as a threat. Even the charge of “lying” about those weapons is not quite cast-iron: I prefer the charge I made, of sexing-up, or exaggeration. I and most others always thought Iraq had something in the WMD line; the exaggeration lay in the fact that it was nowhere near threatening enough to justify a war.

But there are no excuses for what the government did to the BBC and to Dr Kelly. He was outed to further a series of denials which we can, quite plainly, call lies. An explanation, if not an excuse, may rest in Campbell’s mental state: even Blair, in his memoirs, called him a “crazy person” who by that stage “had probably gone over the edge”. But that doesn’t explain the really scary part: how the machinery of government, in a mature democracy such as Britain’s, allowed itself to be captured by someone in that state.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief responsible for the dossier, was once asked what he thought of me. Flatteringly, he said: “I wouldn’t want you to print my views on Andrew Gilligan.” My own views on Sir Richard, Sir John Scarlett and the other distinguished knights of Iraq who got too close to New Labour are perfectly printable: they failed catastrophically in their duty, bringing their professions, their services – and their country – into deep, possibly permanent, disrepute.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10192271/The-betrayal-of-Dr-David-Kelly-10-years-on.html

 

Nice article

[DKT27]

On 24/4/2017 at 5:58 AM, nIGHT said:

My news source are CNN, 3 national tv news channels and topics here on nSane.

Pretty much lost on the current events and the real truth behind it.

 

I remember few years ago we had two members here.

They have same religion, they belong to the same country (Syria) but differs on political views.

They both post different facts and videos claiming one is fabricating the other just like what is happening now, referring to the recently locked topic.

They also got the mannequin post videos as I can remember claiming the other sides' videos were fake and just acting to show such alleged horrific event.

They both debunked one another and they really got mad at each other.

Most of the topics these two got involved were either locked or hidden.

They both demonstrated hatred here on nSane.

Then the war intensify in Syria, I never heard from any of them anymore.

Or, maybe they got banned and re-registered and changed nicks here?

How are those two nSane brother of ours?

I hope they're fine and safe, as well as their families.

I forgot their nicks already.

But one thing is clear, repeating what they did here, at that time, does not solve problems but only fasten the incoming war (for them in Syria).

 

It seems topics like these just escalates the matters up to the point it becomes irreconcilable and just fuels hatred.

My brothers and sisters here on nSane, I hope we may find a way to prevent war than fuel it.

Who started what, who lies and how to stop the ongoing conflict? I don't know.

But instead of fueling hatred to our people against the people of other countries, we should stay passive and not be hostile on any way.

Nobody's going to win this war and the conflict of these superpowers will destroy this little fragile planet.

 

On 24/4/2017 at 6:41 AM, nIGHT said:

Sorry @dufus, I meant no disrespect, but we need to spread love and friendliness.

 

Exactly.

 

This is nsane.forums, a tech site, not some anti-country, anti-person forum where people keep arguing over political issues.

 

Thread closed.