When a person looks at this from one angle, they may perceive that this is true, as it is coming from someone who is an ambassador to the U.S, and obviously, a person of such high calibre would be unlikely to make something up like this. However, Tony Blair, British Prime Minister said
“The threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability, that threat is real”.
So if what Tony Blair said is places against what Mohammed Aldouri said, why is it true that many people would think that what Tony Blair said that the truth, and go along with it? One cannot be in another country and perceives that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction. The only way, in which one can believe that weapons were present, was by going and looking for themselves. To append to this, Tony Blair still sent his troops into Iraq for a war. The outcomes to war were all present to everyone around the world. Everyone knew innocent people were going to die, but reluctantly, war went ahead.
To a certain extent, how can we be sure that what Tony Blair said was the truth in itself? No proof was shown; neither did the investigation team find anything. If this was the case, then why the people who were for the war go alongside Tony Blair, and agree for a war? It could have been because these people did not understand the problem that was taking place, and were only looking at one side of the problem. J.P Satre said
“Words are more powerful and treacherous than we think”
One can agree that this claim is true when compared to the words that the leaders spoke before going to war. A few words, saying that Britain and America were going to fight in Iraq, instantaneously meant that many lives were to be destroyed for the Iraqi people, and the soldiers that were going to fight. Even if Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons, the amount of times that the leaders said that he did have them, could have made them believe something that was not true. The majority of Britain, and people around the world were insisting that was should not take place, but still, it did take place. This may have been because the leaders believed in the fact that weapons were present so much that it could have shown a psychological effect, which forced them to carry out such actions. Alongside themselves, the powerful leaders made millions of people go alongside them. Furthermore, what we were told in Britain was this same story told in Iraq? Could it mean that the truth depends on the language that it is told in? It can be said that this is true, because if Tony Blair said in English to the people in Iraq that their leaders was corrupt, and had weapons of mass destruction, many Iraqi people would not believe t. however, if it was said in the language of what the people spoke, someone if them would have agreed with what Tony Blair has to say, This may be because from their native language, they can understand the situation, and see it from other perspectives.
Humans do not consciously use filters, and thus, understanding certain tasks, could prove to be difficult. This is because in the majority of the cases, we can understand the situation properly, but when it comes to problems that we can see, understand, or are close to, humans tend to believe what is the easiest for them. For this reason, many people did not actually find out the real truth that is if there is such a thing as truth. For example, people around the world cannot be certain, and found out for themselves if Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, many people would agree that the claim “In order to find out how things really are, one must understand the filters through which one perceives the world.” Discuss and evaluate this claim” is true. The use of filters is required for humans to understand what is taking place. This is because if one does not know what he reason to why something is happening, basically, they will not know what is happening likewise, id one does not understand the language which the tells the person what is happening, again, they will not understand and find out what the problem is. Furthermore, if a person cannot perceive the problem, this can suggest that the person is unsure of what is happening. This is because a person can say that they know something, only after they understand the reason to why something is taking place, and as everyone has a view point, the only way the view point can be heard, is be the person understanding the problem, and then telling other people what they think. Emotions can also be tired into perception. When a person tells another person about something, about something that they feel strongly about, many people would agree that when you are telling something about something that you feel or believe, you are also showing your emotions.
For a person to understand a situation fully, and react to it, filters are more defiantly required to help a person to unsolve a problem. Filters help us to do this by breaking down what is going on, which makes it easier for us to understand the problem. For example, if you go back to the prime filters, the eyes and the ears, an analogy could be implied, which can help a person to understand how filters break down something, and make it easier for someone to understand. Lets say, two people are talking, we know that they are talking because we can hear them talking. Furthermore, we also know that that two people are present because we can look at them. Filters break down the problem, and then each filter will understand the situation differently to another filter, and at the end, everything that is understood is put together, to make one final account of what happened.
Mohammed Aldouri, Ambassador to U.S
Tony Blair, British Prime Minister
