Opinions wanted

[JPaul]

So your source is the interweb.

Go you.

Please allow me to explain, one last time. Intelligence doesn't have caveats. That's not how it works. Intelligence is not the same as information, a least not within the intelligence community.

The fact that you see the words as interchangeable tells me all I need to know.

Look, if I just say you have an unfeasibly small penis can we just do away with all this fannying about and I'll do the day of moderation.

Twist and squirm all you like, I didn't say my source was the interweb.

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

I've also never said the words were interchangeable, that's just another of your inventions. If that's all you think you need to know it explains why you can't follow an argument.

If you spent a little more time concentrating on the subject and less time being insulting and trying (and failing miserably) to be what you probably think is funny you might just have a chance of holding your own in this thread. Give it up, find a porn site and hold your own there.

Intelligence is, by definition graded. Otherwise it is not intelligence it is information.

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

The reason I said you appear to see the words as being interchangeable is that you misuse them regularly. No intelligence agency would supply information, that would be pointless. They would supply intelligence. They would seek to corroborate the information and if they could do so their report would state that. If they could not then it would state that.

So uncorroborated information from a normally reliable source would be put forward as such. There is no option, that's the way it happens. If it doesn't then it isn't, by definition intelligence (in the intelligence agencies sense of the word).

Sticking on point, as I have been all along. If he was given intelligence that something was the case and it wasn't. Then that's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who provided it. Subsequent enquiries are irrelevant, as he didn't have them to rely on at the time.

[j2k4]

Did you mean to also say, "...unless the caveat has to do with WMD, in which case it can be discounted on it's face..."?

No, but I can imagine you would want others to believe I would.

Your formulation becomes totally useless if modified to close the rather obvious loophole I just drove the WMD truck through...

[lynx]

Twist and squirm all you like, I didn't say my source was the interweb.

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

I've also never said the words were interchangeable, that's just another of your inventions. If that's all you think you need to know it explains why you can't follow an argument.

If you spent a little more time concentrating on the subject and less time being insulting and trying (and failing miserably) to be what you probably think is funny you might just have a chance of holding your own in this thread. Give it up, find a porn site and hold your own there.

Intelligence is, by definition graded. Otherwise it is not intelligence it is information.

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

The reason I said you appear to see the words as being interchangeable is that you misuse them regularly. No intelligence agency would supply information, that would be pointless. They would supply intelligence. They would seek to corroborate the information and if they could do so their report would state that. If they could not then it would state that.

So uncorroborated information from a normally reliable source would be put forward as such. There is no option, that's the way it happens. If it doesn't then it isn't, by definition intelligence (in the intelligence agencies sense of the word).

Sticking on point, as I have been all along. If he was given intelligence that something was the case and it wasn't. Then that's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who provided it. Subsequent enquiries are irrelevant, as he didn't have them to rely on at the time.

No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

[lynx]

No, but I can imagine you would want others to believe I would.

Your formulation becomes totally useless if modified to close the rather obvious loophole I just drove the WMD truck through...

That argument only works if there were still any WMD.

Now, if you could just reveal their location...

[j2k4]

Now, if you could just reveal their location...

Syria, of course; the Euphrates, the southern marshes, underground....

[JPaul]

Intelligence is, by definition graded. Otherwise it is not intelligence it is information.

Intelligence agencies use a system which is understood and lets people reading it know 3 things. How good the source of the intelligence is, how good the intelligence itself is and where it can be disseminated to. Some, military for example may use other things as well, but these 3 are the bare minimum requirements

The reason I said you appear to see the words as being interchangeable is that you misuse them regularly. No intelligence agency would supply information, that would be pointless. They would supply intelligence. They would seek to corroborate the information and if they could do so their report would state that. If they could not then it would state that.

So uncorroborated information from a normally reliable source would be put forward as such. There is no option, that's the way it happens. If it doesn't then it isn't, by definition intelligence (in the intelligence agencies sense of the word).

Sticking on point, as I have been all along. If he was given intelligence that something was the case and it wasn't. Then that's not his fault. It's the fault of the people who provided it. Subsequent enquiries are irrelevant, as he didn't have them to rely on at the time.

No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

You really are an arse. It's absolutely fantastic.

Go administrate a computer network somewhere and leave the World to the people who live in it.

[j2k4]

No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

You really are an arse. It's absolutely fantastic.

Go administrate a computer network somewhere and leave the World to the people who live in it.

Good point.

Sorry this is so short, but I really needed the post.

[lynx]

No, you aren't sticking to the point.

The point was (and still is) that the government lied (you keep saying he, do you have someone particular in mind?). It isn't relevant whether the facts were subsequently proved to be incorrect. The government was told that there was doubt about the reliability of the information.

The government subsequently told Parliament that the information was beyond doubt, and that statement wasn't true.

I don't give a fuck whether you think I understand the difference between intelligence, information, facts, suspicions, rumours.

The fact is that the government misled parliament. The lied. They didn't tell the truth. And if there were enough people in parliament with the guts to stand up and say so they would have be held to account for it, and it may still happen.

Meanwhile people like you stand as apologists for a corrupt regime. Much like people in Germany in the 1930's.

You really are an arse. It's absolutely fantastic.

Go administrate a computer network somewhere and leave the World to the people who live in it.

Down to you usual level I see - no argument so you resort to insults.

I doubt many with an open mind will be surprised.

[JPaul]

I've already explained it to you and can't really spell it out much more simply. There's no argument because it's just going over the same things that you have ably demonstrated you don't understand.

Given that you think intelligence agencies supply people with information there really isn't any point on wasting more breath on you. I teach this stuff to the hard of thinking and even they pick it up.

Like I've said loads of times before, it's all there for people to read. What they think of me, or you, is a matter for the reader to decide.

[lynx]

I've already explained it to you and can't really spell it out much more simply. There's no argument because it's just going over the same things that you have ably demonstrated you don't understand.

Given that you think intelligence agencies supply people with information there really isn't any point on wasting more breath on you. I teach this stuff to the hard of thinking and even they pick it up.

Like I've said loads of times before, it's all there for people to read. What they think of me, or you, is a matter for the reader to decide.

Blair and his crew are liars, not because the intelligence was wrong but because they said there was no doubt about its veracity. Yet the very people who supplied the intelligence specifically said they could not verify the information that the intelligence was based on and that consequently the conclusions were uncertain.

Intelligence has to be based on something, otherwise it's just called making things up.

If they weren't just making things up, but the information on which they were basing their conclusions was dubious, then there was no certainty and Blair and Co lied.

If the information wasn't important then they were just making things up, in which case there was nothing on which to base their report to parliament. That seems to be your viewpoint. But the end result is still that Blair and Co lied.

If you can't understand that simple point, then god help those you claim to teach.