PDA

View Full Version : The conspiracy theory that refuses to go away


ReallyRong
12-06-2009, 04:47 AM
Apologies for the long rant here, but indulge me if you will. This may have been reported on here before, but I haven't seen it so am posting. It relates to the reasons for invading Iraq when Saddam was running the country, and the infamous "Weapons of mass destruction" that he supposedly possessed. At the time, over here in the UK, Tony Blair's government was trying to drum up support for a foreign incursion that was receiving little domestic support. Suddenly a report came out that not only did Saddam have these weapons, but that they could be deployed against British targets (military bases in Cyprus as it turned out) within 45 minutes. Not long afterwards BBC radio reported a story from an unnamed source saying that this was a load of rubbish, the spin doctors had "sexed it up" and there was no valid reason to invade Iraq. This caused a huge legal argument between the BBC and the government which the government won. It subsequently turned out that the unnamed source was a civil servant named David Kelly who was a weapons inspector and probably knew a lot more than anyone else. The spin doctors set about him, he was called into a parliamentary commitee and well, the next thing he was found dead, apparently having commited suicide. And that's where this story begins really, because nobody believes that he actually commited suicide, despite a whitewash enquiry. Link below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233330/Dr-David-Kelly-Six-doctors-demand-inquest-death-weapons-expert-prove-murdered.html

mscelina
12-06-2009, 04:49 AM
Okay. And?

Haggis
12-06-2009, 04:53 AM
:popcorn:

Zoombie
12-06-2009, 04:56 AM
I thought the conspiracy theory that refuses to go away was the Moon Landing Hoax theory...

ReallyRong
12-06-2009, 05:03 AM
Well, I was hoping for a response of "Oh, this is how these things work. How did George W do the same thing to us?" but obviously it's not a big enough story for you guys...

Prozyan
12-06-2009, 05:04 AM
Well, I was hoping for a response of "Oh, this is how these things work. How did George W do the same thing to us?" but obviously it's not a big enough story for you guys...

Or . . . its like . . . ya know . . . a conspiracy theory?

ReallyRong
12-06-2009, 05:06 AM
Anyone bothered to read the link?

sulong
12-06-2009, 05:07 AM
It's very old news/theory.

Prozyan
12-06-2009, 05:07 AM
You mean the one that says six doctors believe he was murdered and are trying to force a "real" investigation?

Yup. Read it.

Still conspiracy theory. Will be until they have something concrete.

Over here, people still believe we never landed on the moon, Lyndon Johnson arranged Kennedy's murder, and Roswell is a massive coverup. And they are filing lawsuits all the time to "prove" it all.

Plot Device
12-06-2009, 05:11 AM
The Daily Mail???

Reputation wise, how do they fare?

Williebee
12-06-2009, 05:12 AM
I don't see anyone denying it's a theory. But, at this stage, that seems to be all it is.

Stateside, what the WMD folks need is for someone to show that this actually happened, and that Pres. Bush got his intel from Mr. Blair. Then it can be ALL THEIR FAULT! :)

As a friend from Manchester likes to say, "Not bloody likely."

Paul
12-06-2009, 05:22 AM
Interesting One.
Soon as i heard of the banker hanging form Blackfriar bridge my instincts were 'foul play' - same with this one.
Strange the mail are involved (right wing publ.) as M16/M15 may be fingered.
Wonder if an investigation will be opened - but not sure what impact the truth - if there is another truth - will have.

Haggis
12-06-2009, 05:28 AM
The thing is, RR, the problem with conspiracy theories is that none of them go away.

ReallyRong
12-06-2009, 05:29 AM
The Daily Mail???

Reputation wise, how do they fare?

Okay, wise one. You got me and I stand defeated. Seriously. Not only by you but the general indifference on this board to a war that was not only a form of Greek tragedy where the son avenges his father's dishonour, but one that was built on lies. But the British tabloids (even the Daily Mail) have their moments when the editor realises that he's been deceived, and I'm a great believer that what goes around comes around, and that one day those people who caused the death of so many innocent people will receive their justice. Call me naive if you want.

Zoombie
12-06-2009, 05:34 AM
Don't mistake this for indifference.

We all care a great deal about the war and the death, destruction and loss of property that it has caused. That still earns a load of discussion (just look at Haskin's thread about Obama's plan for Afghanistan) and debate.

Unsupported conspiracy theories written in the DAILY MAIL, a known hate-rag...well, that'll give us a big eh.

Paul
12-06-2009, 05:44 AM
The thing is, RR, the problem with conspiracy theories is that none of them go away.

Well there's con. theories and there's con. theories...

Just bec. one is paranoid doen't mean...

;)

Have to admit, this one always interested me, will be waiting and watching with an open (ish) mind

ReallyRong
12-06-2009, 05:45 AM
The problem with the Daily Mail is that it's not ALL rubbish. Some of it (but i have to admit not a lot of it) is worthy. Can you really tell me that 6 doctors trying to publicly get this case re-opened is a bad thing and not worthy of discussion?

Magdalen
12-06-2009, 05:45 AM
The power of the Dick was boundless.

Zoombie
12-06-2009, 05:50 AM
The problem with the Daily Mail is that it's not ALL rubbish. Some of it (but i have to admit not a lot of it) is worthy. Can you really tell me that 6 doctors trying to publicly get this case re-opened is a bad thing and not worthy of discussion?

It depends on the doctors. There are some doctors I wouldn't trust with my spare change, let alone my body (or the future of my country).

Williebee
12-06-2009, 05:53 AM
Not only by you but the general indifference on this board to a war that was not only a form of Greek tragedy where the son avenges his father's dishonour, but one that was built on lies.

You've been around since Aug of 2007, you should know that "indifference" is not a word associated with any war around here, particularly this one.

I'm with Paul. I'm interested and will be paying attention, as I have in the past. But right now this theory is up there with the ones surrounding Princess Diana.

ReallyRong
12-06-2009, 05:53 AM
The power of the Dick was boundless.

I like that line and might steal it from you sometime, but it's kinda come from left or right field somewhere. Unless I'm the powerful Dick, but I'd rather not go there. It's late over here and I'm off up to bed now.

blacbird
12-06-2009, 06:43 AM
99.9% of major conspiracy theories founder on the shoals of Occam's Razor.

That having been said, I always have this one caution: The single major event in my lifetime that was vociferously denounced as a crazy conspiracy theory, and turned out to be true, provable, and proven, was the Watergate scandal, 1972-1974.

It foundered because it had too many participants (a dozen or so major ones), and eventually some of them faltered under legal pressure. Which is another lesson: a conspiracy theory that involves countless hundreds or even thousands of people in multiple major governmental agencies is mathematically absurd at the footings.

caw

clintl
12-06-2009, 07:01 AM
It foundered because it had too many participants (a dozen or so major ones), and eventually some of them faltered under legal pressure.

Not to mention a president too stupid to turn off the tape recorder when he was conspiring.

benbradley
12-06-2009, 08:29 AM
We Are Not Alone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvacBPpYFw)

clintl
12-06-2009, 08:40 AM
OMG, the Geico gecko is an alien?

BenPanced
12-06-2009, 09:20 AM
There's a reason why it's called a theory.

DWSTXS
12-06-2009, 09:29 AM
Not to mention a president too stupid to turn off the tape recorder when he was conspiring.


are you talking about Tricky Dick?

Don't change dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in 72!


Avoid all needle drugs, the only dope worth shooting is Richard Nixon.

Fran
12-06-2009, 02:22 PM
Dr David Kelly versus Alistair Campbell was never going to be won by Dr Kelly.

I'm open-minded about the cause of Dr Kelly's death. I wouldn't put much past Blair and even less past Campbell, which is where my agreement with the Daily Mail starts and ends, but on this one I really don't know. I didn't know Dr Kelly so don't know if suicide would have been in his nature, but then who can say anyone wouldn't be driven to suicide in a particular set of circumstances? In my view, most conspiracy theories are rooted in a government's failure or refusal to release or share information, so if the six doctors who want the inquiry reopened succeed (which I don't think they will - it's too close to the General Election but Cameron may take it up if/when he wins) I'll certainly follow the case.

I find the yellow cake uranium from Niger angle interesting as well. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html American intelligence service debunked the idea Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium, but Blair kept insisting it was true. My opinion on this is that Blair knew the 45 minute claim was bullshit and was desperately trying to cling to any justification he could to salve his conscience. I hold Blair more responsible than Bush - I think Bush had some truly evil people influencing his presidency, but Blair made the decision alone and then bullied and railroaded the resolution through Parliament. And even if Dr Kelly did commit suicide, it was someone in the government who took the decision to name him publicly, so they're not entirely blameless either way.

Shakesbear
12-06-2009, 04:41 PM
The Independent was right - 'Whitewash!'. I have been wondering why the six doctors have decided to do this now, about six months before a general election. Muckraking or a sincere concern?

robeiae
12-06-2009, 04:56 PM
I find the yellow cake uranium from Niger angle interesting as well. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html American intelligence service debunked the idea Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium, but Blair kept insisting it was true.
Well, that's not the way it happened. The story you linked to says thusly:

Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it. Ambassador Joseph Wilson emphasized that he had reported back through traditional channels, and asked whether his report had been ignored because it didn't fit with the administration's preconceptions about Iraq.
But lookee:

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html


In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

Fran
12-06-2009, 05:35 PM
Well, that's not the way it happened. The story you linked to says thusly:

But lookee:

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

My point is the Americans admitted they'd made a mistake after Bush's speech. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3792

When the IAEA asked to see evidence of the administration's contentions, they were put off, until finally the Niger uranium documents were handed over. It took IAEA scientists just a few hours to demonstrate that the documents were not only forgeries, but were particularly crude ones at that – an amateur could have debunked them using Google. As the Washington Post reported, one administration official's response was "We fell for it."

Neither Blair nor anyone else in the UK government has ever to my knowledge admitted the documents were forgeries, and according to this article http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/31/030331fa_fact1?currentPage=1 MI6 probably made them in the first place.

Samantha's_Song
12-06-2009, 06:25 PM
I've always believed that there was something fishy about Kelly's death too. But how are you ever going to get the truth with someone like Baroness Scotland? She messed up her own policies with illegal immigrants, made them law, and yet she got away with doing exactly what the law she'd made was against.

Blair sat with forces wives and mothers etc in a live TV show, a week before the Iraq invasion, and said that Saddam could stay in power if he handed over the weapons that Blair knew wasn't there. I watched the programme myself, but that seems to get forgotten about war-criminal Blair too.

And then there's the scandal about the expenses, which many MPs should have been up in court for fraud and extortion.

You are never going to get the truth with this farce of a Labour government in control.

robeiae
12-06-2009, 06:40 PM
My point is the Americans admitted they'd made a mistake after Bush's speech.
Okay, but the article you linked to--from Time--has got it all wrong. Again, it's not the way it happened. The part I quoted from that story is nonsense.

Fran
12-06-2009, 07:11 PM
Okay, but the article you linked to--from Time--has got it all wrong. Again, it's not the way it happened. The part I quoted from that story is nonsense.

I thought Time was a reliable source. I've linked to two further articles on the subject, so hopefully they're more accurate.

robeiae
12-06-2009, 07:29 PM
I thought Time was a reliable source. I've linked to two further articles on the subject, so hopefully they're more accurate.

That Time story was based on Joe Wilson's Op-Ed to the NY Times, wherein he claimed that there was no evidence that Iraq sought yellow-cake in Niger. But intelligence officials claim--and the 9-11 Commission report backs it up--that Wilson's report to them suggested exactly the opposite: that there was some such evidence. So, Wilson didn't debunk anything. His trip and subsequent report served to strengthen the British intel that the US had, re Iraq, Niger, and uranium.

Fran
12-06-2009, 08:33 PM
That Time story was based on Joe Wilson's Op-Ed to the NY Times, wherein he claimed that there was no evidence that Iraq sought yellow-cake in Niger. But intelligence officials claim--and the 9-11 Commission report backs it up--that Wilson's report to them suggested exactly the opposite: that there was some such evidence. So, Wilson didn't debunk anything. His trip and subsequent report served to strengthen the British intel that the US had, re Iraq, Niger, and uranium.

I see. Thanks for that. I didn't have access the New York Times then because I wasn't online (there was one newsagent in Glasgow I knew of at the time that sold it but it was always a week behind so there seemed little point buying it ;)) so I wasn't aware of the original source for the Time article.

Kaiser-Kun
12-06-2009, 09:27 PM
We Are Not Alone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvacBPpYFw)

Indeed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

Magdalen
12-06-2009, 11:23 PM
Well, that's not the way it happened. The story you linked to says thusly:

But lookee:

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

That Time story was based on Joe Wilson's Op-Ed to the NY Times, wherein he claimed that there was no evidence that Iraq sought yellow-cake in Niger. But intelligence officials claim--and the 9-11 Commission report backs it up--that Wilson's report to them suggested exactly the opposite: that there was some such evidence. So, Wilson didn't debunk anything. His trip and subsequent report served to strengthen the British intel that the US had, re Iraq, Niger, and uranium.

Yanno, this keeps coming back to Joe Wilson and Dick Cheney. Given the choice between believing Joe or Dick, who do you think I'm gonna go with?


This report indicated the the former Prime Minister of Niger was unaware of any Iraqi contracts for yellowcake, but acknowledged that in 1999 Iraq may have been interested in discussing yellowcake sales but the PM "steered the conversation away." Niger's former Minster for Energy said that there had been no yellowcake sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the 1980s.

This report also described "how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to ell uranium to any rogue states."
The consensus expressed in the Senate report was that Wilson's trip provided little or no new information. Thus, the information was not used to "produce any further analytical products" and the CIA did not brief the Vice President on the report. (46)

And yet.

There is no explanation why the CIA reported on 25 March 2002 from the same [foreign] government service, which said "the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of uranium per year would be delivered in --redacted--." In other words, the report is now asserting "as fact" that there was a contract. What caused the CIA to determine that the information was now "firm"?

All the while, the CIA analyst and the INR (State) analyst disagreed whether Niger could supply Iraq with yellowcake. The CIA said "yes" and INR said "no."

National Security Council (NSC) contacted the CIA to clear language for possible use in a statement by the president. The language cleared by the CIA: (49)

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. And we know this: within the past few years, Iraq has resumed efforts to obtain large quantities of a type of uranium oxide known as yellowcake, which is an essential ingredient in this process. The regime was caught trying to purchase up to 500 metric tons of this material. It takes about 10 tons to produce enough enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon."
This statement, too, clearly overstates the intelligence as presented to the Senate. It was not used publicly.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger_2.htm


Maybe this is where the "phantom" fact of 500 tons of the stuff came from. Because, it appears that the Iraqis did, in fact, already have yellowcake, and maybe that intel somehow got confused with the story about them wanting to buy 500+ tons. I'm trying to be fair here, and this type of switcheroo of facts (yellowcake already bought in '91 versus yellow cake to-be-bought in 2002) is just the type of tactic used by The Dick.

Is rightpudits.com a conservative (enuf) blog?


While the yellowcake itself must be further purified for use in a nuclear weapon, it is clear that the uranium was not in Iraq for peaceful purposes. It was housed at Tuwaitha and was apparently brought into the country prior to 1991.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1686



You can't have it both ways. The 16 words were incorrect, according to the WH as of 08/2003.

. .
.the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml

dclary
12-07-2009, 12:02 AM
Were you aware that the Incas somehow built one of the seven cities of gold in South Dakota?

Julie Worth
12-07-2009, 12:09 AM
99.9% of major conspiracy theories founder on the shoals of Occam's Razor.


Occam's Razor doesn't apply here. There are two possibilities: he was killed or he killed himself. One isn't more complicated than the other.

Fran
12-07-2009, 12:21 AM
The Independent was right - 'Whitewash!'. I have been wondering why the six doctors have decided to do this now, about six months before a general election. Muckraking or a sincere concern?

Probably because the Iraq inquiry's begun and they feel it's timely. One thing I've noticed from the admittedly little I've seen of it is how in the dark most high-ranking officials claim they were kept about what was going on in Westminster and Washington DC in the run-up to the war. I'm not suggesting they're lying, but arse-covering is the official sport of politics.

robeiae
12-07-2009, 02:11 AM
You can't have it both ways. The 16 words were incorrect, according to the WH as of 08/2003.
I'm okay with that. In fact, I already linked to an article (http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html) that says exactly this. But it wasn't because of Joe Wilson's trip, at all. And Bush wasn't lying when he said it, just going with intel that proved to be wrong.

Still, in that same State of the Union Address (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/), Bush gave his justification for invading Iraq:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
In my view, the mistake the Bush admin made was post-invasion, when it sought to prove Saddam had WMD's. It should have stuck to the initial justification: the potential was sufficient, alone.

Bird of Prey
12-07-2009, 03:25 AM
The "potential" is never sufficient. We have "potential" problems all over the world. Why not invade China??

robeiae
12-07-2009, 03:33 AM
Nah. We should just stop doing business with them.

Bird of Prey
12-07-2009, 03:38 AM
Nah. We should just stop doing business with them.

Oh good. We can nationalize everything and not make good on our debt, playing right into the hands of our resident hawks. Think of how delighted they'll be if China invades us. . . .

robeiae
12-07-2009, 03:41 AM
Pffft. China's not gonna invade us.

And we don't have to make good on our "debt." China holds US securites and dollars. They can sell 'em or keep 'em.

Bird of Prey
12-07-2009, 03:45 AM
Pffft. China's not gonna invade us.

And we don't have to make good on our "debt." China holds US securites and dollars. They can sell 'em or keep 'em.


We don't have to make good on our debt, huh?? Well, Rob, that's quite a statement there. . .yep. . . .

Fran
12-07-2009, 03:48 AM
I can only speak for the UK, but China's swamped us with their super-cheap goods. An actual physical invasion isn't necessarily required.

Robert Toy
12-07-2009, 03:52 AM
The invasion plan is already established…they will close all the Chinese take –aways at the same time

Kaiser-Kun
12-07-2009, 03:57 AM
they will close all the Chinese take –aways at the same time

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/Kaiser-Kun/nooo.jpg

Fran
12-07-2009, 04:01 AM
The invasion plan is already established…they will close all the Chinese take –aways at the same time

Yeah... I bet they spend Mondays plotting. Chinese takeaways here are always closed Mondays. ;)

robeiae
12-07-2009, 04:06 AM
We don't have to make good on our debt, huh?? Well, Rob, that's quite a statement there. . .yep. . . .
No, it's really not. You're just presenting it incorrectly, like most people.

The US didn't take out a traditional loan with China. Again, they hold US Securities. We should pay whatever we owe on those securities, of course. But they can't "call it in." All they can do is sell them. And if they sell them at a big loss (that is, "dump" them), it would be bad for the US...but much worse for China.

Read this: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/hayes

And this: http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/china-debt-fed-business-beijing-dispatch.html

And this: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/13/business/econwatch/entry4864398.shtml

Bird of Prey
12-07-2009, 04:13 AM
No, it's really not. You're just presenting it incorrectly, like most people.

The US didn't take out a traditional loan with China. Again, they hold US Securities. We should pay whatever we owe on those securities, of course. But they can't "call it in." All they can do is sell them. And if they sell them at a big loss (that is, "dump" them), it would be bad for the US...but much worse for China.

Read this: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/hayes

And this: http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/china-debt-fed-business-beijing-dispatch.html

And this: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/13/business/econwatch/entry4864398.shtml

Yes, I know all that. I didn't present anything incorrectly. We still have to pay the debt, Rob. And we haven't even addressed the effect of nationalization. . . .

robeiae
12-07-2009, 04:15 AM
What nationalization?

But no, I don't think you're presenting it correctly, at all.

Magdalen
12-07-2009, 04:18 AM
Well, back to the OP. I googled, "Who Killed David Kelly" and here are the prime suspects:

Assassins sent by Saddam
http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/

MI6
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488667/Why-I-know-weapons-expert-Dr-David-Kelly-murdered-MP-spent-year-investigating-death.html

The FBI
The mysterious deaths of top microbiologists:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...

Maybe [Kelly would] blow the whistle if an artificially created disease was about to be used in a manner those who created it did not approve of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB1GVz46Few

Or whichever shadow org sent:
Strangely 'unidentified' men wearing combat fatigues were present at the scene of the so-called suicide during the investigation.


or, my choice:

The CIA (on behest of The Dick)
http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79855

But it doesn't seem to me that David Kelly killed himself, that's for sure.

ReallyRong
12-08-2009, 04:31 AM
Thanks Magdalen for bringing the OP back into the frame. The Daily Mail have an obvious agenda for bringing all of this stuff back up to the boil, and that is because the Chilcot Inquiry is currently sitting and hearing evidence about Iraq in London. (Though strangely, we don't get to hear a lot of what's happening on that one. Can't be much newsworthy stuff coming out). I don't think the Mail have any sort of an electioneering mandate here; their editor/journalists just seem to have a wannabee Washington Post in the seventies attitude, and to be honest I'm all for it. Apologies if I'm repeating what a gazillion people have said before, but...

<RANT ON MODE>[RANT MODE ON]We thought we were going to get some truth from officialdom and all we got from Hutton was that nobody had done anything wrong. This whole thing stinks to high heaven to me, so maybe we need to enrage the mob to get an approximation of truth out of those who know but aren't telling. For me the really interesting aspect is that people are still asking questions long after the major political players of that age have left the scene, and it makes it harder for them to cover up their tracks and more likely that the truth might eventually eke out. I would absolutely love to see Blair, Campbell, Bush Jr, Cheney and the rest of them being tried for the murder of hundreds of Brits, thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. It might not feel so bad if there was any sense of accomplishment or having done something worthwhile, but I don't see it. [RANT MODE OFF]<RANT MODE OFF>

Sorry about that. I'd better go hang out with Davide Icke for a while to chill out....