[Davo]

Hi Fultonius

I really try not to get lost in the world of conspiracy theory stuff but as I have never heard of him before would it be possible to post a link to something where it sounded unlikely but he was proven to be correct?

I find my head hurts when I start to read nonsense like that article as it requires so much effort to attempt to dissemble it. The 911 conspiracies on the internet are equally as plausible and if you simply read them you could easily believe that there were no planes striking the towers and that actually demolition charges were used. Equally there is loads of stuff out there convincingly denying that the school shootings in the USA ever took place. Again without actually looking at the tv and the media footage you could easily believe them.

None of the above implies that you believe any of the above just that it takes so much effort to repudiate this stuff that it doesn’t seem worth it when most of it is so patently nonsensical.

In terms of that article he mixes so much up together that it is hard to know where to start. The poisoning bit about the Skripal’s seems particularly rubbish though. The easiest explanation is that Russia poisoned them and that they used Novichok. He has a very convoluted section about all of this that really didn’t make sense.

Anyway if you could post something where he has been correct that would be great

Cheers

Dave

[Davo]

On another note:

I have got through all of the episodes of The Fault Line podcast by David Dimbleby about the build up to the Iraq war. Thought it was really good and really brought back loads of memories about that period of time. It avoids simply hammering Blair with did he lie and is really nuanced about stuff but still gives both Blair and the US administration a hard time.
Good for those old enough to remember it all clearly and maybe useful for anyone younger but wants to understand how Iraq and the West ended up where we are today.

Dave

[Will Hunt]

Oh dear, what tragic little sheeple we must be.

As Dave points out, it's ridiculously time-consuming to try and take this stuff apart. It requires time and resource that only a journalist who writes about the subject is likely to have, and it would take them far longer to do than it would for someone to write more bullshit. If the blogger wanted to be taken seriously he could just try not writing like a conspiracy theorist. Instead he loads his writing with little phrases like "NATO funded propaganda website Bellingcat" (a handy way of making you distrust anything they say without actually having to present a counterargument), and "the pariah rogue states Israel and North Korea" (a nice little signal there that this will be a reassuringly anti-establishment narrative - remember, the establishment lie about everything, you cannot trust anything they say).

Why on earth would anybody decide to go to this blog for a dispassionate assessment of the evidence?

And if he's been right about something before (I don't know what this might refer to), that doesn't mean he's right about everything. A stopped clock tells the time twice a day - that doesn't make it right all the time.

[Fultonius]

Oh dear, what tragic little sheeple we must be.

As Dave points out, it's ridiculously time-consuming to try and take this stuff apart. It requires time and resource that only a journalist who writes about the subject is likely to have, and it would take them far longer to do than it would for someone to write more bullshit. If the blogger wanted to be taken seriously he could just try not writing like a conspiracy theorist. Instead he loads his writing with little phrases like "NATO funded propaganda website Bellingcat" (a handy way of making you distrust anything they say without actually having to present a counterargument), and "the pariah rogue states Israel and North Korea" (a nice little signal there that this will be a reassuringly anti-establishment narrative - remember, the establishment lie about everything, you cannot trust anything they say).

Why on earth would anybody decide to go to this blog for a dispassionate assessment of the evidence?

And if he's been right about something before (I don't know what this might refer to), that doesn't mean he's right about everything. A stopped clock tells the time twice a day - that doesn't make it right all the time.

OK, admittedly some good points there guys. I've just been reading the refutation/takedown of the Douma evidence by Bellingcat. They're certainly a highly intelligent outlet and also push a very convincing message. It all gets very "he said she said", and they basically do their level best to discredit the other side of the argument, than to actually refute the key points of contention.

I'm going to spend some time considering the various viewpoints and report back. It may take time.

I guess to summarise my feelings about the Whit Helmets /  Mayday / James Le Mesurier podcast - it did nothing, particularly the friends and acquaintances who were interviewed, to dissuade me from the possibility that he did have MI6 links. On the balance of it, it seems unlikely. He certainly had contacts. The white helmets, while doing a lot of good work certainly got on the wrong side of a misinformation war. Was it a messy organisation with a high flow of money from the west into a complex Syrian war zone - certainly. Could some improper things have been carried out with their access, support etc? Probably.

Were they a Western funded propaganda core, dedicated to framing Assad and pushing Western narratives...doubt it.


Listening to both the Intrigue podcasts, and the Dimbleby/ IRAQ concurrently was quite a contrast for me. The latter presented compelling arguments, well backed up with interview and archive audio, rarely dismissing counterpoints without good backup. (And I went into it being sceptical and looking for inconvenient truths to be brushed away - see my post when Toby suggested it!!)

Conversely, other than the Douma attack I only had a mild mistrust of some aspects of the White Helmets, knew nothing of James Le Mesurier and my main previous beef was the Douma narrative, which it glossed over and brushed away. It's probably too late now to go back in time and re-hash the OPCW fact finding mission, but I would love to see a similar effort from SomethingElse productions on that...but I doubt it'll happen.

The Bellingcat approach to the leaked report on Douma was to discredit, rather than refute. They made a few convincing pretty pictures, but I'm still unconvinced. I am now more doubtful of either narrative than before. It's all a fuckin mess. Believing Auntie would be so much simpler...

I'm going to attempt to read the full OPCW report so I'm not relying on interpretations. We'll see if I have the necessary willpower.

[duncan]

If you enjoyed The Fault Line you might enjoy Talking Politics: History of Ideas, a series of lectures on key works of political thought likes Hobbes’ Leviathan, Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj or Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (hugely popular in a condensed version published by Reader’s Digest, who have a lot to answer for!).  Like most podcasts how you respond to the narrator is crucial (Dimbleby’s gravitas works well for the Fault Line). David Runciman has the tone and confidence of a hereditary viscount from St John’s Wood, who won an Eton scholarship, and is now a Cambridge professor. If this doesn’t put you off he’s a brilliant lecturer. The piece on Max Weber's The Profession and Vocation of Politics, about the contradictory character traits required of a leader in a democracy seemed particularly relevant when considering Blair.


On a different tack Transmissions is the story of Joy Division and New Order (with one episode dedicated to the Hacienda). It claims to be the first time the band has sat down to tell their story. Presumably Control and 24 Hour Party People, numerous biographies and memoirs, and any number of BBC4 documentaries introduced by Stuart Maconie don’t count. Despite this hyperbole it’s mostly excellent stuff. All the main protagonists still living have been interviewed and tell their tales well. Rob Gretton, Tony Wilson and Martin Hannett left plenty of material to work with. Warmly recommended for people who are into this kind of thing.

Final episode will be about Blue Monday. I first heard the tune whilst on a gear cadging expedition with the retired super Alpinist. We had been instructed to let ourselves in to collect the tent - or whatever he had been promised - as the owner was off on some trip. Once in possession of the item, our eyes were caught by an impressive looking turntable, amp and speakers in another room. New Order’s latest was cued up and ... wow!  I think the set-up might have belonged to Neil F of this parish... I promise we were very careful with your cartridge Neil and thank you for opening my ears to the possibilities of a good sound-system.

[Davo]

Thanks for the heads up about the history of ideas. I listen to talking politics with David Runciman anyway and so that should fit well

[TobyD]

The current series of the Reith Lectures is very interesting; on BBC sounds. Mark Carney discusses economics,  the concept of value and the financial crisis,  and gets quizzed on it by quite a few former chancellors.

[Will Hunt]

Two thumbs up for The Fault Line.

[TobyD]

Two thumbs up for The Fault Line.

I totally agreed. I thought it was the best produced, sourced and most sophisticated documentary I have listened to or watched for a long time; in fact I'd struggle to think of anything similar which is actually better.
For anyone who hasn't listened it is about the aftermath of the 09/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, largely focusing on the Iraq war. It is certainly not easy on many of the major political figures, but it is fair, telling a story of a situation which was immensely complicated and not the 'fault' of any one person. In the final analysis you could try to say that it was the neocons (Rumsfeld, Cheney etc) who got their way by precipitating what they thought should have been done in the first Gulf War, but many others enabled the chain of events, largely unwittingly it appears, until they were too far down the road to war and being committed to regime change to back out of it.

[spidermonkey09]

I thought it was good, solid but largely unspectacular. I think having Dimbleby hosting was a masterstroke as he lends everything an air of gravitas and trustworthiness. There was interesting detail and great access to key figures (helped by Dimbleby involvement no doubt)  but I found the format of jumping around chronologically quite wearing and didn't end the series feeling like I'd learned much. Basically I thought it was all a bit 'meh' so am interested that others are raving about it. I'm no 'hater' of Blair in the way that many on the left are incidentally.

[highrepute]

I too really enjoyed Fault Lines but I can also see where spidermonkey is coming from. Perhaps 8 hours on this subject is only enough to scratch the surface.

On this theme I have really enjoyed Slow Burn (which has been mentioned in this thread i think). Series 1 about watergate, series 2 about Clinton's impeachment especially.

[Will Hunt]

I thought it was good, solid but largely unspectacular. I think having Dimbleby hosting was a masterstroke as he lends everything an air of gravitas and trustworthiness. There was interesting detail and great access to key figures (helped by Dimbleby involvement no doubt)  but I found the format of jumping around chronologically quite wearing and didn't end the series feeling like I'd learned much. Basically I thought it was all a bit 'meh' so am interested that others are raving about it. I'm no 'hater' of Blair in the way that many on the left are incidentally.

Now that you mention it, I also struggled with the chronology, but I enjoyed the podcast and really wanted to get to grips with what it was saying. After I'd listened to the first 6 episodes or so I'd caught up with those that had been released and they then started to come through weekly. I felt like I'd lost the thread so went back and actually relistened to it but kept a chronological list of the main events (not for the last 2 or 3 episodes though).

I was 12 when 9/11 happened, so the war was something I saw on the TV but didn't completely comprehend. I found that I learned a lot by listening to the podcast.

It seems like a perfect storm. Bush too weak on foreign policy to push back against the neocons. Blair still filled with the heady optimism of what foreign intervention could achieve after his own success in Sierra Leone and the UN's success in Bosnia. Chalabi and other defectors feeding misinformation to the Americans. 9/11 (without which we almost certainly wouldn't have had a war on the terms that we did).

Blair definitely doesn't come out of it well, but the cliches of "warmonger" or of it being an "oil war" don't really fit. The root of it seems to be that the relationship between the intelligence community and those in government made it too easy to spin the evidence in such a way that supported the war. The sexing-up of the "dodgy dossier" is just the tip of the iceberg and more the end result of a flawed process that preceded it. In a murky swamp of evidence, the weakest leads that pointed to war were promoted and the strongest evidence which pointed away was ignored or suppressed. It was eye-opening to see the extent of how flawed the intel was.

NSFW  rough chronology:

1988 - chemical weapons used against Kurdish Iraqi civilians

Late 1990 to early 91 - first gulf war. No regime change.

1991 - UN resolution that Iraq must destroy WMDs; inspectors to be present; if Iraq did not comply then force could be used. Saddam's weapons declaration viewed as laughably incomplete. Inspectors sent in who are treated obstructively.

Clinton administration and Bush administration - rise of neocons. Iraq Liberation Act makes regime change in Iraq the policy objective of the US government.

Aug 1995 - Hussain Kamal (Saddam's son in law) defects. In advance of inspectors interviewing him Iraq reveals concealed documents which are corroborated by Kamal. They tell that up to the end of the 1st Gulf war there was a chemical weapons programme. Kamal expresses a desire to become the new leader of Iraq leading an all-Arab peace. Kamal is lured back to Iraq and killed.

Increasingly hostile inspections. Further breakdown in relations. Inspectors leave in December 1998 leaving no Western intelligence capability in Iraq. The assumption in the West is that because the Iraqis were dishonest they must still have WMDs.

1999 - Curveball source flees Iraq for Germany.

9/11 - in the immediate aftermath people started to sow the seeds of regime change in Iraq.
Intel supporting the narrative that Saddam had been building WMDs was fed to newspapers by defectors linked to Ahmed Chalabi. Both Chalabi and the defectors had vested interests in regime change and in providing intel that would secure their status in the US. The evidence was not credible. Prior to 9/11, some months after a US weapons inspector had admitted to Chalabi that they were looking for mobile weapons labs, the Curveball source turns up who claims to have worked on the mobile labs. He wasn't followed up directly by the Americans prior to war.

Oct 2001 - unanimous UN resolution. Invasion of Afghanistan

April 2002 - Blair-Bush meeting at Crawford ranch. Private conversations. Blair first mentions regime change if necessary.

Summer 2002 - Blair and Campbell decide to publish intelligence report on WMDs. Campbell leans on MI6 to make it more unequivocal. Presented information that Saddam had WMDs ready to use in 45 minutes.

Sep 2002 - Bush-Blair meeting at Camp David. Blair trying to persuade Bush that they need a UN resolution before carrying out action in Iraq. Bush addresses UN and requests UN resolutions to bring inspectors back to Iraq.

Late 2002 - Bill Murray makes contact with Iraqi foreign minister who wants to defect. The intel is that Saddam does not have WMDs.
Feb 03 - Bill trying to get his contact (ep1) believing his intel might stop the war. War drums. Intense public debate. Dimbleby interviews Rumsfeld - "war is not inevitable". Colin Powell addresses UN security council.

Jan 2003 - Pentagon administration discussing links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, despite the intelligence community stating that this was unfounded.

20th March 2003 - invasion begins

[Davo]

This reply is mainly for Fultonius and Will Hunt:
Finally managed to listen to the bbc podcast: Intrigue which is about the death of James Le Mesurier.

To be honest except for the discussion here I would never have bothered as it really wasn’t my cup of tea but my thoughts are as follows:

Basically I don’t understand that there is any controversy. The white hats seemed to be doing a great thing in really dangerous situations. Russia and the Assad regime have set out methodically to put out large volumes of truly bizarre misinformation that conspiracy theorists latch onto and use as evidence of cover ups and all kinds of other bizarre plots by the west.

It just overall confirmed my feeling that the Russian government is extremely dangerous and only interested in furthering it’s own pretty grim agenda in the world. Also Assad is clearly a mass murderer.

Dave

[Davo]

I thought it was good, solid but largely unspectacular. I think having Dimbleby hosting was a masterstroke as he lends everything an air of gravitas and trustworthiness. There was interesting detail and great access to key figures (helped by Dimbleby involvement no doubt)  but I found the format of jumping around chronologically quite wearing and didn't end the series feeling like I'd learned much. Basically I thought it was all a bit 'meh' so am interested that others are raving about it. I'm no 'hater' of Blair in the way that many on the left are incidentally.

Fair comments. I think I may biased due to age here. I can remember most stuff around this fairly clearly and therefore this was more like a nice summarizing without rehashing a lot of stuff that was gone into in huge detail at the time and in the inquiry later.

Dave

[spidermonkey09]

Fair comments. I think I may biased due to age here. I can remember most stuff around this fairly clearly and therefore this was more like a nice summarizing without rehashing a lot of stuff that was gone into in huge detail at the time and in the inquiry later.

Dave

Yeah it definitely filled a gap in the podcast market. I think the perception I went into it with, namely 'Iraq was the product of overconfidence and an excessive desire to be seen to be 'with' the US rather than a Machiavellian plot to steal oil/fuck up the country,' was basically what I emerged with as well. You can see how the way the evidence was selected to support the war got people suspicious though; I think the main takeaway was that all of the intelligence was fundamentally shit.

[Johnny Brown]

The current series of the Reith Lectures is very interesting; on BBC sounds. Mark Carney discusses economics,  the concept of value and the financial crisis,  and gets quizzed on it by quite a few former chancellors.

Thanks for this, despite his rather dry delivery I agree - very interesting. The issue of price vs value seems to be one of the biggest issues with the state of the world right now and I wonder when we'll next have a Governor with such a clear eyed view of finances' limitations.

[TobyD]

You can see how the way the evidence was selected to support the war got people suspicious though; I think the main takeaway was that all of the intelligence was fundamentally shit.

One of the things that it did contain in the first episode was a CIA agent whose intelligence was not shit, but essentially the neocons prevented it from reaching the white house.  To start with the British government likely was being prevented from seeing the things that indicated that there weren't any WMD,  only later when the countries were basically committed,  did they become complicit

The current series of the Reith Lectures is very interesting; on BBC sounds. Mark Carney discusses economics,  the concept of value and the financial crisis,  and gets quizzed on it by quite a few former chancellors.

Thanks for this, despite his rather dry delivery I agree - very interesting. The issue of price vs value seems to be one of the biggest issues with the state of the world right now and I wonder when we'll next have a Governor with such a clear eyed view of finances' limitations.

I think that the next one on climate change sounds interesting as well. I liked the one about different organisations' assessments of the financial worth of a human life. 

[spidermonkey09]

One of the things that it did contain in the first episode was a CIA agent whose intelligence was not shit, but essentially the neocons prevented it from reaching the white house.  To start with the British government likely was being prevented from seeing the things that indicated that there weren't any WMD,  only later when the countries were basically committed,  did they become complicit

True (the structure of releasing one episode a week means it was a long time ago I listened to that episode!). My point is that Blair was pretty credulous and naive to unquestioningly accept intelligence which only ever pointed one way. Its not really enough to say 'we were led down the garden path by the neocons, it wasnt really Blair's fault,' which I know you arent saying but is the logical continuation of the 'british govt never got reliable intel from the americans' line.

Basically this credulousness reinforces my perception of Blair as so eager to get into bed with Bush he misplaced his political nous, which is a tragedy for all concerned, not least the Iraqis, as he was undeniably a brilliant politician prior to Iraq and his legacy is fucked now.

[turnipturned]

I thought it was good, solid but largely unspectacular. I think having Dimbleby hosting was a masterstroke as he lends everything an air of gravitas and trustworthiness. There was interesting detail and great access to key figures (helped by Dimbleby involvement no doubt)  but I found the format of jumping around chronologically quite wearing and didn't end the series feeling like I'd learned much. Basically I thought it was all a bit 'meh' so am interested that others are raving about it. I'm no 'hater' of Blair in the way that many on the left are incidentally.

I was 12 when 9/11 happened, so the war was something I saw on the TV but didn't completely comprehend. I found that I learned a lot by listening to the podcast.


Likewise, I thought it was really good.

Probably been mentioned before but I really enjoyed the BBC Radio 5 live- Paradise podcast series. Crazy story.

[spidermonkey09]

Paradise is fantastic. Brilliant podcast.

[Fultonius]

Christ. I just spent 5 mins getting lost in that miasma of utter garbage of a conspiracy theory blog by that guy Craig Murray. Had never heard of him before and hopefully never will again.

It all just strikes me as typical conspiracy theory garbage that sounds very convincing and has lots of threads all linking stuff together in a seemingly plausible manner. Next minute you start believing that there were no moon landings and that 911 was a conspiracy by the CIA and that the towers could never have fallen down just by being hit by planes.

See, this is my issue. Everyone writes him off as a "conspiracy nut", but he's been proved right time and time again. I'm yet to see a definitive case where he's categorically proven wrong. People don't engage as their bullshit radars go off, and they give up.

I'd genuinely rather none of it were true, and I could start writing him off like everyone else does. Maybe he's a Russian disinformation shill? If so, show me. I'm willing to admit I'm being mislead. We all can be. I need facts though...

Been doing a lot of digging on the Douma stuff, and, well, I'm less convinced by Murray's position than before. There are still many odd and obscure parts of the puzzle that are difficult to "explain away", but I'm now very doubtful of the "planted canisters" theory.

More digging to be done.

Doesn't feel nice to think you may have bought a lie....

[TobyD]

Current most recent evening session on R1 is a classic David Holmes one, I really enjoyed it

[seankenny]

That’s very good, thanks Toby.

[TobyD]

That’s very good, thanks Toby.

A pleasure, glad you liked it.

I've been listening to a few Intelligence Squared casts recently. The latest one with Claudia Hammond talking about resting is interesting.

[Will Hunt]

If you enjoyed The Fault Line you might enjoy Talking Politics: History of Ideas, a series of lectures on key works of political thought likes Hobbes’ Leviathan, Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj or Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom ...

David Runciman has the tone and confidence of a hereditary viscount from St John’s Wood, who won an Eton scholarship, and is now a Cambridge professor. If this doesn’t put you off he’s a brilliant lecturer.

I'm listening to this at the moment and enjoying it hugely. There's complex ideas in there but Runciman explains it well and carefully, allowing laypeople (like me) to engage with some meaty topics. Many thanks, Duncan!

But, I do want to pull you up on the above which I don't feel is relevant. He may be from a privileged background but he's also an academic in his own right. He is self-assured in his delivery (he'll let you know where he disagrees with other commentators and explain why) but not any more so than any other expert.

Just thought I'd mention it as it would be a shame if his background put anybody off listening.