>I saw a BBC Panarama episode last night on Four Corners ABC, called
> "Iraq, the lost billions."
>
> I was waiting for the usual disclaimer at the end "All events are
> purely fictional, and the persons depicted are not based on anyone
> past or living"...but nothing. Just the credits.
>
Investigative current affairs programmes are usually based on facts; as such
they constitute non-fiction and thereby require no disclaimer.
> One civilian convoy driver's wife explained that her now disabled
> husband (blown up), who was guaranteed 100%% safety by one of Chaney's
> subsiduary companies who held the 'delivery contract', actually drove
> empty trucks, to boost up the 'cost plus' profit margins.He was
> offered $20 000 and a non disclosure agreement.
>
See that actually happened, ergo it's non-fiction.
> The fact that the same company provided $30m to the Bush election
> campaign, and there was no competitive quotes for the contract, to say
> nothing of the plans being drawn up for the ownership of the $5.2
> trillion worth of oil in Kurdakstan, the biggest portion so far
> allocated to a Texas company....and none to Kurdakstan....
>
Again, facts not fiction.
> May not be news to many here, but I have taken little interest in the
> events. One parallel to my usual 'rubbish' (ala Turt/Zinnic) is there
> is a huge difference between theory and fact as in 'theory of
> relativity'.
I disagree. Theory attempts to explain the facts. A successful theory allows
us to predict the behaviour of some phenomenon. To say that there is a gap
between theory and fact or to say "That works well in theory but not in
practice" changes the meaning of theory. Essentially "theory" is synonymized
with "hypothesis". The theory of relativity is not an hypothesis. What makes
it a theory, and a good theory at that, is that it is testable and it gives
very accurate predictions about that which it makes predictions. Show me a
fact that relativity attempts to explain that relativity can't explain or
predict. Find enough of them and you can argue that relativity is not a good
theory. So where do you see the "huge difference"?
>
> Even in the light of such exposures, I suppose many will still only
> see "conspiracy theory".
No, in the shadow of the equivocation error made above you make another by
calling this conspiracy theory.
>
> Another example of the native Americans "We see no ships" experience?
>
> BOfL
