Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 92 comments are related to the topic:
Dr David Kelly - 1.01 Landed
Dr David Kelly - 1.01 Landed
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 92
|
By:
Not that I know anything for certain...as long as our government covers up
We can use our imagination |
|
By:
it wasnt kelly , thats why its all closed, somebody elses body
was substituted in as he was embarassed. hes now doing panto with elvis and lord lucan |
|
By:
You have got it in one Donny
 |
|
By:
Grappler.
If you would care to read my post again, sir, you will note that I did not support the sentiments expounded on the death of Dr Kelly in either of those two videos. I merely listed them for any interested forumites to view should they so wish. As it happens, I do not believe David Kelly was murdered. There are many inconsistencies in the Hutton Report that warrant suspicion to be sure, but not enough evidence to cry murder in my view. I stand by my endorsement of James Corbett. He is a reseacher of superb credentials. You might be wise in future, dear chap, to follow his example of calm, balanced debate and steer clear of baseless ad hominem. Best wishes. |
|
By:
Why did the government not point the finger of suspicion at Russia , or is that a more recent tactic ?
 |
|
By:
Putin was not president of Russia until 2012 Reynard....so we could not point a finger of suspicion at
Russia then. I watched the first of those videos Pokermonster, it confirms my own belief, if the 2nd is the same as the first, then I can why our government may well postpone any enquiry until Mr Tony Blair is no longer with us. IMPEACHMENT...erm we want to avoid that. |
|
By:
Ah Pokermonster...the 2nd video contradicts the first...it puts all the blame on the BBC
 Andrew Gilligan in particular. It appears he was the one who said the report on Iraq had been sexed up not David Kelly. Well that puts a rather different slant on things. Still David Kelly's suicide contains many incongruities. So he still may have been murdered in the belief he had said that. WMD's were never found either. Lessens the blame slightly on Tony Blair, if DR David Kelly had not in fact said that. I still don't think we should have joined Bush in the attack on Iraq. There have been far too many attacks by us on the Middle East in my opinion, and far too many bodies. For a situation we caused ourselves coming up to 100 years ago now. When we liberated Arabia from the Ottamen Turks we should have stayed out for good. just my own opinion |
|
By:
Indeed, sir. :)
I don't entirely subscribe to the views aired in either video. I just recalled them from the time and pasted links so any interested parties could judge for themselves. Best wishes. |
|
By:
Very fair of you Pokermonster
 I still do not think we should have invaded Iraq, in fact I have never approved of any of our interference in the Middle East. These so called WMDS of mass destruction, apart from Nuclear Weapons, they do not work? If Saddam had had Nuclear Weapons there is no way we would have invaded would we? All the problems in the Middle East emanate from one source in my opinion, which people see or they don't. If I put it up I would immediately be misjudged, so I am not. This invasion was only 2 years after 9/11, Bush was still in a state of shock. He panicked when he heard the word WMD's. But if Blair had not agreed to go in with him, he may not have invaded? I do not think any enquiry into David Kellys death will be reopened until Blair has passed on. |
|
By:
Bush also asked France to go in with him into Iraq.. But they refused.
The American's punished France for this, by withholding some of their latest high tech stuff, which they gave to us. Mind you France got back in Americas good books when it was Gadhafi's turn to be knocked over. They were first in, in was more in there bailiwick as well The problem is we cannot fight terrorism with war only. We also have to win heart and minds. Which the Americans have ignored. Also are we now really free of any Terrorist threat, of course not, I give up.  |
|
By:
UBLE/REGY Joined: 11 Mar 10
Replies: 778 15 Jan 19 00:44 Putin was not president of Russia until 2012 Reynard....so we could not point a finger of suspicion at Russia then i despair. putin has been in charge in russia since 2000. bush, clinton, obarma, been and gone. trump will go. putin endures. the way of the world is going in a dangerous direction, and it aint down to trump, however absurd he is. wanchors like you pay no heed to the genuinely scary machinations of putin, xi and co. no threads about them. you are a very stupid person. i pity you, and hope you have no family. |
|
By:
poker. corbett loses any credibility immediately by denying global warming is happening, the evidence is overwhelming. he might be right, but an avalanche of people who have spent their life studying this say otherwise. i know who i will go with. he is a contrarian, and not a very interesting or clever one.
|
|
By:
grappler
yes you are right...nearly Putin was President of Russia from 2000 - 2008, and then from 2012 - now so apologies the genuinely scary machinations of putin, xi and co can you enlarge on this? What scary machinations? You have to remember that Putin is President of RUSSIA not this country. So he works for the interest of Russia and Russian's everywhere....that was his election pledge. When the Soviet Union collapsed a lot of Russians found themselves in countries which were no longer part of Russia...his pledge is to stand up for them. He supports Assad in Syria because he sell arms to Assad and has bases in Syria. Putin is not our enemy. I am loyal to this country ,but when we do wrong I will say so, I amake full use of FREE SPEECH. More than most perhaps No one has to agree with me, I argue my case. I do not think our Government or Media always tell us the truth tbh. So I think for myself |