Just when u think the governments have been disgusting enough in their lies and deception they slap you with something even lower.
How do they continue with a straight face after plagiarising like this:
You want a report.. we can give you a report… pssst. how do you cut and paste?
seems like cut and paste is a widespread disease. btw what is the usual penalty for plagiarism?
Well for starters you lose all credibility...provided there's any left.
It doesn't make the dossier any less factual . Is it certain that the Gov. didn't receive permission from the original authors?
^ Even if they did, i am not certain that a decision to go to war against 24 million people should be partially based upon the work of a graduate student.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
^ Even if they did, i am not certain that a decision to go to war against 24 million people should be partially based upon the work of a graduate student.
[/QUOTE]
No the reason is because Saddam won't disarm. The war isn't with 24 million people, its against Saddams regime.
Juicy stuff, let me first copy the whole news article from PA’s link. Comments later…
Downing St dossier plagiarised Iraq
The government’s carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism. The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN yesterday. Channel Four News has learnt that the bulk of the nineteen page document was copied from three different articles - one written by a graduate student. On Monday, the day before the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell addressed the UN, Downing Street published its latest paper on Iraq. It gives the impression of being an up to the minute intelligence-based analysis - and Mr Powell was fulsome in his praise.
Published on the Number 10 web site, called “Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation”, it outlines the structure of Saddam’s intelligence organisations. But it made familiar reading to Cambridge academic Glen Ranwala. It was copied from an article last September in a small journal: the **Middle East Review of International Affairs. **](http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html) It’s author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Large sections do indeed appear, verbatim. A section, for example, six paragraphs long, on Saddam’s Special Security Organisation, the exact same words are in the Californian student’s paper. In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading.
Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is “spying on foreign embassies in Iraq”. The original reads: “monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq.” And the provocative role of “supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes” has a weaker, political context in the original: “aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes.” Even typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated. Of military intelligence, al-Marashi writes in his original paper: “The head of military intelligence generally did not have to be a relative of Saddam’s immediate family, nor a Tikriti. Saddam appointed, Sabir Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri as head…” Note the comma after appointed. Downing Street paraphrases the first sentence: “Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War.” This second line is cut and pasted, complete with the same grammatical error.
plagiarism is regarded as intellectual theft.
Sample text
Government dossier: (page 13), published Jan 2003
*“Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War. After the Gulf War he was replaced by Wafiq Jasim al-Samarrai. After Samarrai, Muhammad Nimah al-Tikriti headed Al-Istikhbarat al-Askariyya in early 1992 then in late 1992 Fanar Zibin Hassan al-Tikriti was appointed to this post. These shifting appointments are part of Saddam’s policy of balancing security positions. By constantly shifting the directors of these agencies, no one can establish a base in a security organisation for a substantial period of time. No one becomes powerful enough to challenge the President.” *
al-Marashi document: (section: “MILITARY INTELLIGENCE”, published sept 2002 - relevant parts have been underlined
*Saddam appointed, Sabir ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Duri(80) as head of Military Intelligence during the 1991 Gulf War.(81) After the Gulf War he was replaced by Wafiq Jasim al-Samarrai.(82) After Samarrai, Muhammad Nimah al-Tikriti(83) headed Military Intelligence in early 1992(84) then in late 1992 Fanar Zibin Hassan al-Tikriti was appointed to this post.(85) While Fanar is from Tikrit, both Sabir al-Duri and Samarrai are non-Tikriti Sunni Muslims, as their last names suggest.
Another source indicates that Samarrai was replaced by Khalid Salih al-Juburi,(86) demonstrating how another non-Tikriti, but from the tribal alliance that traditionally support the regime holds top security positions in Iraq.(87) These shifting appointments are part of Saddam’s policy of balancing security positions between Tikritis and non-Tikritis, in the belief that the two factions would not unite to overthrow him. Not only that, but by constantly shifting the directors of these agencies, no one can establish a base in a security organization for a substantial period of time, that would challenge the President.(88) *
>>The war isn’t with 24 million people, its against Saddams regime.<<
…If you can guarantee that the precision guided weaponry will exclusively target palaces, not one residential structure, hospital, or water purification plant.
More on the plagiarism, including a few comments from the graduate student:
UK war dossier a sham, say experts, Michael White and Brian Whitaker
The Guardian, 7 February 2003
See, if the war is against Saddam then just assassinate him. What’s the big deal??
This just reminds me of the reason why i wouldnt didnt vote for Blair,he lacks guts,he spins like a top and has not realised that the British public are not stupid,he has no reason to do this sort of thing.
If he had just asked the British people to trust him on this issue and pointed out that he believes in this enough to lose his job over,the Brits would have been behind him all the way but he is so used to spinning every issue,he doesn`t know when to stop.
yeah right.
I was thinking of posting this thread in the Jokes forum.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
It doesn't make the dossier any less factual . Is it certain that the Gov. didn't receive permission from the original authors?
[/QUOTE]
It is certain that the British government told blatant lies when it about the report, claiming "The report was put together by a range of Government officials.*It has rightly been branded *"cut and paste plagiarism"** with its misquotes, spelling errors and punctuation.
All it is material stolen from the student papers and the internet, and not some intelligence study as first claimed, which anyone can put together with not much effort. It was a desperate and embarrisingly sloppy attempt to please the Americans, and Powell fell for it when he gave it fullsome praise in his speech at the UN.
Its another nail is the increasingly discredited "evidence" presented by Powell - lies over the US anthrax attacks, lies over Al Qaida links, lies based on the UK report, and information acquired therough torture. I'm surprised the Powell report has fallen flat on its face so soon...
braveheart
I know what you are saying, would have preferred to have major or kinnock running the show. but right now it does not seem like there is anyone in either party with the charisma and leadership to challenge him.
...If you (or anyone) can guarantee and prove that Saddam doesn't have WMD there wouldn't need to be a war.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
...If you (or anyone) can guarantee and prove that Saddam doesn't have WMD there wouldn't need to be a war.
[/QUOTE]
If you can guarantee such a thing then you would not have governments telling blatant lies, plagiarising interent sites and student papers, making links to (American) terrorists which even their own intelligence agencies don't take seriously. Is it any wonder that not a single country was convinced by such lies and plagiarism, and in fact the opposite has happened.
Malik, why can't Saddam offer proof that he destroyed his chemical and biological weapons?
utd the fact is that Blair has his pants down with this one.. the report isn't just an academic report.. it was like a decade old!!
all the 'capabiliites' referred to are pre Gulf War... some 'intelligence' I must say..
As for Saddam not destroying any Chemical and Biological weapons, you have to prove that at the end of the Gulf war he still had those in his possession.
[QUOTE]
[As for Saddam not destroying any Chemical and Biological weapons, you have to prove that at the end of the Gulf war he still had those in his possession.
[/QUOTE]
It has been proven, Saddam doesn't even dispute that.
utd, please refresh my memory where he admitted to possessing these weapons.
This is the type of source that Powell has to rely on in order to present his ‘smoking gun’ to the Security Council - it begs the question, if your intelligence sources unequivocally prove that Iraq is “deceiving, not disarming”, then why not present THAT evidence instead of relying upon the work of a graduate student, as well as work that was published in 1997 - an entire year prior to UNSCOM inspectors withdrawing from Iraq? Why do they make this so easy for us.
UK document on Iraq contains errors, Stephen Fidler
Financial Times, 6 February 2003