Some reports I heard on radio say it may have been the Italian agencies! What Italy would gain by doing this I'm not sure. So add 1 more to your list Fraudz. More plausible France?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
But these very few war mongering governments i.e. the US and UK are still going to go to war on the basis of FORGED and PLAGIARISED proof that they have presented to the world, and without waiting for the UN inspectors to complete their work.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, Malik. There is no "evidence", i doubt there ever was. Something that has been forged and/or plagiarised does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" - it is deception. It is amazing how anyone can believe it is justified to commit an invasion based upon - what? The work of a graduate student in California and third party sources that have subsequently proven themselves to contain erroneous information ? Not even the IAEA, Blix, or Annan believe there is justification for the claim that Iraq is not cooperating.
i know one other entity whose interest it can be to have a war... i.e. the kurds, just thought i would add them to the list of potential perps :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Exactly, Malik. There is no "evidence", i doubt there ever was. Something that has been forged and/or plagiarised does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" - it is deception. It is amazing how anyone can believe it is justified to commit an invasion based upon - what? The work of a graduate student in California and third party sources that have subsequently proven themselves to contain erroneous information ? Not even the IAEA, Blix, or Annan believe there is justification for the claim that Iraq is not cooperating.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia war or no war I think we know that barring a few states in the world nobody in the world has fallen for the US-UK lies and propoganda, and that has done lasting damage to the standings of these few states in the long term.
Malik yaar can you briefly explain to me why Spain and Portuguese (the other 2 members of the so called and overrated world coalition) are so inclined to Bush's arse, i mean war :D. We already know about the special relationship b/w American and British heads of state. What is Spain benifitting from this by sucking up to them?
Well Spain (and Portugal) we must not forget were ruled by facist dictatorships well into the 1970’s, and thus missed out on the post-war economic development and regeneration. Hundreds of billions of EU money provided mainly by the French and German taxpayers has been given to these laggards via the EU in the last 20 odd years. Though Portugal is still an economic slowcoach and Spain is still trying to exorcise it’s facist past they now want to follow the British example and piggy back on the American’s to win some world role for themselves. But like the rest of the world the peoples of both countries are resolutely opposed to this war, and are likley to inflict electoral damage on the ruling parties in the future.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
so here are the potential culprits so far
Israel
UK
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Pakistan
US
Aliens
Al-kaayda
lets give them some odds, and place your bets.
[/QUOTE]
Iran and Kuwait?????
Israel
UK
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Pakistan
US
Aliens
Al-kaayda
Kurds
Iran
Kuwait
still no news on who actually did it though?
Since the forgeries were so obviously of such poor quality (putting signature of ppl who are not there anymore etc), I'd be surprised if it turns out to be a work of Mossad, or for that matter, any intelligence agency.
Its probably just a poor con man, who had to cough up some proof of his babbling after he had too much to drink with some MI-5 operative (Remember, "The Tailor of Panama"?). The dude must have boasted of "solid proof", and then had to make good on it cz he had already taken an advance payment to supply the documents.
And from that point on, it was a series of incompetent officials in MI-5 and CIA who allowed this piece of garbage to go to the very highest level, with no cross check.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
And from that point on, it was a series of incompetent officials in MI-5 and CIA who allowed this piece of garbage to go to the very highest level, with no cross check.
[/QUOTE]
It also shows that US administration officials like Powell and Rumsfeld rely quite heavily on garbage from incompetent official like these? God knows what others lies and forgeries they have told, that have as yet gone unnoticed?
based on the fact it was a crap forgery.. i would vote for
- Kuwait
- Saudi Arabia
rest of the countries in the list actually have intelligent forgers.
I would count Iraq in it as well, but it appears that iraq has exorcised its arabness by being the most literate of the arab population.
so on basis of conspiracy theory i vote
- iraq
Have the US administration admitted that they were given forged information, like the British government admitted that they had plaigirised reports?
Malik, FBI is investigating the matter. You prolly know what that means. The results will be made public along with the domestic anthrax terrorism probe :D
“The inspectors reviewed the documents – hiring independent authentication experts to evaluate the handwriting and signatures. And then, last Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council something startling: The documents were crude forgeries.”
Truth be told: The Bush administration’s small lies on Iraq](http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/local_regional/bushlies03232003.htm) The Metrowest Daily News
By Peter Beinart Sunday, March 23, 2003
Why does so much of the world think the Bush administration has hidden, nefarious motives for its war in Iraq? Partly, it’s because Marxism isn’t entirely dead – and many people still assume that U.S. foreign policy is governed by a rapacious, imperialistic desire for profit or, in this case, oil.
Partly, it’s because anti-Semitism isn’t dead – and many people still assume that Jews run the United States for Israel’s benefit. The responsibility for these misguided, toxic analyses lies mostly with other societies and other governments. But there’s a third reason for the world’s radical distrust of America’s war effort, and, for this, the Bush administration has only itself to blame: It keeps saying things about Iraq that turn out not to be true.
On Dec. 7 of last year, Iraq, as demanded by U.N. Resolution 1441, gave the Security Council a report on its weapons programs. The Bush administration quickly accused Baghdad of leaving out key information. In particular, noted the State Department, “The declaration ignores (Iraq’s) efforts to procure uranium from Niger.” In his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the president cited the uranium deal as evidence of Saddam Hussein’s continuing nuclear aspirations. To prove their case, Britain and the United States handed over documents detailing Iraq’s attempted uranium purchase to U.N. inspectors.
The inspectors reviewed the documents – hiring independent authentication experts to evaluate the handwriting and signatures. And then, last Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council something startling: The documents were crude forgeries. The Iraqi officials who had allegedly tried to buy the uranium were not even in their jobs at the time the documents were supposedly written. Confronted with ElBaradei’s findings last Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition,” Colin Powell changed the subject, “If that issue is resolved, that issue is resolved. But we don’t believe that all issues with respect to development of a nuclear weapon have been resolved.”
Unfortunately for the administration, its claims about other nuclear “issues” haven’t held up much better. In his Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the Security Council, President Bush claimed that Baghdad had made “several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” In early January, the IAEA contradicted Bush once again, arguing that the 81-millimeter aluminum tubes were “not directly suitable” for enriching uranium and were more likely meant for conventional artillery rockets. As David Albright, a physicist and former U.N. weapons inspector currently at the Institute for Science and International Security has explained, the 81-millimeter tubes, with their small diameter and thick walls, were poorly designed to enrich uranium. Indeed, he notes, “No one has ever…produced significant amounts of uranium in a cascade of such machines.” In fact, when Iraq was enriching uranium in the late 1980s, it used tubes of an entirely different kind.
Experts inside the Bush administration agreed. While analysts at the CIA peddled the tubes-for-enriched-uranium theory, gas-centrifuge specialists at the Department of Energy (DOE) were skeptical. “I would just say there is not much support for that (nuclear) theory around here,” one DOE expert told The Guardian on Oct. 9, 2002. But, undaunted, the president cited the aluminum tubes in his State of the Union speech. And, on Feb. 5, Powell repeated the claim once again. In particular, he noted that the tubes Iraq tried to buy were “anodized” – they contained a thin, anti-corrosive film supposedly necessary for use in nuclear centrifuges.
**But the anodization actually undermines Powell’s case. /B Since “bare aluminum without any coating is resistant to corrosion by uranium hexafluoride, the process gas in a centrifuge,” Albright wrote in a March 10 report, “a well-known unclassified fact is that anodization is not necessary for a centrifuge.” By contrast, the conventional rockets Iraq purchased from Italy in the 1980s had corroded in storage, which helps explain why Baghdad wanted to purchase anodized tubes when it tried to build more such rockets in 2000.
Last Friday, ElBaradei delivered the final blow. The IAEA had discovered blueprints, invoices and notes showing that, in its quest to build better artillery rockets, Iraq had for 14 years sought noncorrosive tubes of exactly the type Powell cited. Asked to respond on “Late Edition,” Powell replied, “We still have an open question with respect to that,” hardly a ringing endorsement of a claim showcased by the president of the United States in two nationally televised speeches.
The apparent refutation of two key pieces of evidence does not mean the Bush administration is wrong to suspect that Saddam is still pursuing nuclear weapons. Indeed, everything we know about the man makes it highly implausible that he shelved his nuclear ambitions between 1998 and 2002, when he was free to pursue them absent international inspections. But, for most opponents of the Iraq war, Saddam’s trustworthiness isn’t the issue; President Bush’s is.
This is the same president, after all, who famously claimed in an Oct. 7, 2002, speech that “Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) for missions targeting the United States” – although American officials later admitted that the UAVs had a maximum range of several hundred miles. It’s hard to believe such a whopping error made it into President Bush’s speech by accident. It equally strains credulity that America’s intelligence services were so incompetent that they missed the obvious uranium-document forgeries the IAEA discovered so easily. And it is even harder to believe that the Bush administration was unaware of the flimsiness of its aluminum-tubes evidence – given that experts at the DOE made exactly this point behind closed doors. Absent some convincing explanation by the White House, the most plausible theory is that key officials in the Bush administration knew – or at least suspected – they were making false claims. And they made them anyway.
American officials and commentators will no doubt chalk up their defeat in the United Nations to anti-American suspicion among countries motivated by timidity, resentment and pique. And they’ll be partly correct. But it’s worth noting that the suspicion isn’t entirely irrational, given what Security Council members have witnessed over the past several months. If the Bush administration wanted to win the world’s trust, it should have started by telling the truth.
The Bush administration quickly accused Baghdad of leaving out key information. In particular, noted the State Department, "The declaration ignores (Iraq's) efforts to procure uranium from Niger." In his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the president cited the uranium deal as evidence of Saddam Hussein's continuing nuclear aspirations. To prove their case, Britain and the United States handed over documents detailing Iraq's attempted uranium purchase to U.N. inspectors.
All bare faced lies of course.