5 ms·

I doubt you'll find a credible source - the security services are afterall very good at what they do. It's all circumstantial, but at the time you'd have been h

I doubt you'll find a credible source - the security services are afterall very good at what they do. It's all circumstantial, but at the time you'd have been hard-pressed to find a single citizen who believed Kelly very conveniently killed himself at just the right time to prevent further damage to the government and their web of lies with the US.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
That's shit though. That can be said of anything. Moon landings were faked but the CIA is very good at what they do.
- GordonS 5y ago
  There is a bit of a difference - we have an abundance of evidence disproving the fake moon landing stories. OTOH, there were no witnesses of Kelly's death, and the timing was so very convenient - frankly, it's naive to think our security services wouldn't do this, especially with what was at stake. Keep in mind the the US and UK were fabricating evidence as justification for an illegal war. One that they knew would claim many, many casualties, and for which they must have known would end up destabilising the whole region and growing fundamentalists and terrorists (this was certainly obvious to many at the time). I do see your point, mind, but I don't think such damning circumstantial evidence is "shit"; by that logic, MI6 could never be responsible for anything, unless of course they signed a confession.
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could have prevented. If anything, his death confirmed the web of lies; the whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal if it were just a question of minor messaging details as the government was claiming.
- GordonS 5y ago
  It wasn't about sending message. The theory is that Kelly could have revealed he was told to fake evidence, and could have provided confirmation of who knew what, and importantly, when. It was about timing too - it was a critical point for Blair and Bush getting the war they so desired. Keeping in mind there was already huge opposition to the war, proper 1st hand evidence being revealed at that point could well have resulted in Blair having to stand down, and potentially even the British not joining the war. Which of course the US services would not have liked.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    The timeline's definitely not right for that. The British had already joined the war; Kelly died 4 months after the invasion.
    - GordonS 5y ago
      Then I must concede that I am mis-remembering the timeline.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

That's shit though. That can be said of anything. Moon landings were faked but the CIA is very good at what they do.

GordonS 5y ago
There is a bit of a difference - we have an abundance of evidence disproving the fake moon landing stories. OTOH, there were no witnesses of Kelly's death, and the timing was so very convenient - frankly, it's naive to think our security services wouldn't do this, especially with what was at stake. Keep in mind the the US and UK were fabricating evidence as justification for an illegal war. One that they knew would claim many, many casualties, and for which they must have known would end up destabilising the whole region and growing fundamentalists and terrorists (this was certainly obvious to many at the time). I do see your point, mind, but I don't think such damning circumstantial evidence is "shit"; by that logic, MI6 could never be responsible for anything, unless of course they signed a confession.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could have prevented. If anything, his death confirmed the web of lies; the whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal if it were just a question of minor messaging details as the government was claiming.

GordonS 5y ago
It wasn't about sending message. The theory is that Kelly could have revealed he was told to fake evidence, and could have provided confirmation of who knew what, and importantly, when. It was about timing too - it was a critical point for Blair and Bush getting the war they so desired. Keeping in mind there was already huge opposition to the war, proper 1st hand evidence being revealed at that point could well have resulted in Blair having to stand down, and potentially even the British not joining the war. Which of course the US services would not have liked.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  The timeline's definitely not right for that. The British had already joined the war; Kelly died 4 months after the invasion.
  - GordonS 5y ago
    Then I must concede that I am mis-remembering the timeline.