GazeboflossUK

O'Reilly's America: Who Is The Real "Hater"? A place where the right to disagree = the right to be locked up Steve Watson Infowars.net Tuesday, April 3, 2007 Bill O'Reilly's torrent of attacks upon Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Mark Cuban over the past few days in regards to their outspoken views on 9/11 is a prime example of why the First Amendment should never be presided over by those in power. In what has been described by many as a crude attempt to piggyback on the spiking of viewers to O'Donnell's show The View, O'Reilly has gone on the extreme offensive, suggesting that O'Donnell has "crossed a line" and should reprimanded for being a "hater". In two separate broadcasts on Fox News yesterday O'Reilly mentioned the word "hate" close to one hundred times when talking about O'Donnell. Here are a few samples: Under the graphic Helping the enemy - "Americans Always turn away from haters, that's exactly what Ms. O'Donnell has become." In segment with Michelle Malkin - "You go over a certain line in America, you can't come back from it, you start to sympathize with the enemy, Iran, there's no coming back." "She's not interested in the truth, this is about hatred and that's why I think Disney's got a big problem here. This woman now has crossed the line into the hate territory, there has never been a successful media person in the history of this country that has crossed the line into hate, there are niche people on talk radio, very few on television here, they're wiped out, but on her blog, in her demeanor of television, she is now a hater and Disney is gonna have to deal with it somehow, I think" In a segment where O'Reilly explains to us what media fairness and balance is all about - "We think we have crossed a line into the hate arena... The problem is once you get into an area where you are spreading propaganda, which is where she is with the 9/11 conspiracy and the British government set up its own people to be kidnapped, once you get into that absurd area, the company you work for has to say, this is her opinion, but here is another opinion to balance it out that may be sane." On ratings - "I'm not interested in numbers, I'm interested in protecting Americans from hateful comments and protecting our forces overseas. When someone does what O'Donnell is doing, this is used by our enemies all over the world because her transmission goes all over." "Rosie O'Donnell has now crossed into anti American territory, she hates this government, the Bush administration, and she is using that hatred, she is venting her venom, for whatever reason, I am not a psychiatrist, and she is damaging the country in doing so.... Surely you can't allow someone to come on the air everyday and vent hateful dishonest propaganda, you just can't do that." On debating O'Donnell - "I will never go on the View while she is there because I will not go up against a hater like her." O'Reilly also had some choice words for Charlie Sheen - "If Charlie Sheen puts his name on a 9/11 conspiracy documentary, that will be used by every American hater in the world to tell uninformed people, 'you see Al Qaeda didn't carry out the attack on 9/11, the Americans attacked themselves, the Jews did it, OK, that kind of stuff." In a concluding moment on The Factor, O'Reilly stated: "No one has control over O'Donnell, and that's what ABC's conundrum is". That is not a conundrum Bill, that's called living in a free country. O'Reilly also reminded viewers of his recent "radical" "far left" guests, Sunsara Taylor and Rocky Anderson (whom he also throws into the "haters" category with O'Donnell) showing clips of each telling absolute truths that are unflattering to the Bush administration. O'Reilly is so afraid that his viewers might actually further research these foreign viewpoints that he spent considerable time after each appearance misquoting and slandering his guests, a real coward's technique of debate. O'Reilly's standpoint is that O'Donnell et al are not merely exercising their unalienable right to free speech, they are preaching hate. O'Reilly believes that O'Donnell and "her radical pals" are telling the world the USA is a criminal nation and are somehow "aiding the enemy" whomever that may be this week. O'Donnell, Sheen, Anderson, Taylor, and myriad others are doing no such thing, they are in fact doing the exact opposite in taking on a provably corrupt and criminal Bush administration by encouraging the American people to question their government in an effort to protect American values and further prevent the spread of anti American hatred elsewhere. O'Reilly waxes lyrical about how two sides of any issue should always be presented but in O'Reilly's America, he would have O'Donnell taken off the air immediately and he would have Mark Cuban "thrown in jail". In O'Reilly's America anyone who calls into his radio show in disagreement would receive a visit from Fox security and have their information turned over to local law enforcement agency. In O'Reilly's America anyone grabbed, labeled an enemy combatant detained without trial at the government's behest should be immediately executed. In O'Reilly's America there would be no academic freedom Any professor in disagreement with the US government would be " investigated by the FBI" or "followed 24 hours a day by the CIA" as Sammy Al-Arian and the 9/11 Scholars have found out. In O'Reilly's America anyone who criticizes the espoused pro-torture policy of the government is unpatriotic. This is Bill O'Reilly's America, a place where the right to free speech and protest is the right to be reported to the authorities, publicly branded a "hater" and locked up.

Yes.

I wonder if this might be something a company like AOL might consider in the future. They are always keen to provide the shittiest service.

I checked the FAQ's (worth a read) TiSP is available today in the U.S. and Canada. Balls. I don't like some of the choices google have made recently but I was going to get the free service just for the hell of it. Oh well.

Do you need any others? Just let me know.

Of course you can, here you go. Her Voice Is Beyond Her Years http://www.sendspace.com/file/xl0l4y Autumn is good for me....? :wink3: :cool:

:D When is our wedding then? :kiss: ;) Thanks so much. Where did you find this??!!?? I actually haven't looked around for this track in a long time.

Bill O'Reilly Suggests Throwing Mark Cuban in Jail Saturday, March 31, 2007 Bill O'Reilly suggests that had someone like Cuban attempted to distribute a film like Loose Change during World War Two, FDR would have "thrown his butt in jail". O'Reilly then whines about how people like Cuban, Sheen and O'Donnell should not be given any airtime or attention, whilst this is his third or fourth segment on the same issue. O'Reilly lies and suggests The View is losing viewers when in reality it has gained 600,000 new viewers since O'Donnell took the helm. Geraldo then argues for free speech whilst still suggesting a controlled demolition of WTC7 is "ludicrous". Related: Neo-Con: 'Execute Rosie For Questioning the Government' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YveAiJ1YYV4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_AGpbZhxl8 Yeah, O'Reilly is a one trick, name calling, no fact debating pony. I'm sure people must be able to see he's not at all 9/11 aware and just shouts about "the enemy are going to use this". yeah, Bill, versions of this film have been translated and are all over the world via the Internet....and have been for years. I'm sick of his "if you are against what I think you are a far left liberal nut-job" stance he seems to think is normal. Listen out for all his mis-quotes too. Just makes them up and places them in whenever he feels like it. He's over.

Bill O'Reilly Suggests Throwing Mark Cuban in Jail Saturday, March 31, 2007 Bill O'Reilly suggests that had someone like Cuban attempted to distribute a film like Loose Change during World War Two, FDR would have "thrown his butt in jail". O'Reilly then whines about how people like Cuban, Sheen and O'Donnell should not be given any airtime or attention, whilst this is his third or fourth segment on the same issue. O'Reilly lies and suggests The View is losing viewers when in reality it has gained 600,000 new viewers since O'Donnell took the helm. Geraldo then argues for free speech whilst still suggesting a controlled demolition of WTC7 is "ludicrous". Related: Neo-Con: 'Execute Rosie For Questioning the Government' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YveAiJ1YYV4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_AGpbZhxl8

Errm...sounds like you have been captured by US media again. All this making a nuke is all media buzz words. People hear "they want a nuke" and they just believe it. You even said in the other thread that they have them already...how could you think that, when all Iran have expressed is a desire for peaceful nuclear power? I'll tell you how....because your media has somehow convinced you that "those people over there are bad" and that your government are the "good" guys - which of course is a purely fallacious fact. From what we have all seen in recent years the Anglo-American Crime Syndicate are ruthless killers who will pretty much do anything the move their agenda forward. Whether leaders in the middle-east have already been lobbied, paid off and are part of their countries own downfall is also up for some sort of debate. I mean the recent British sailor crisis has seen some very silly behaviour from the Iranian government....the sort of behaviour which seems to purposely to make themselves appear as foolish as possible. I mean, if these letters and video admissions of guilt by the British captives are all fake and have been orchestrated by the Iranians (which they do actually look staged to me) then surely after their eventual release the sailors would then just say "well, we were told to say and write those things". So the whole point of the 'admissions' seems really pointless - as it only would further demonise then Iranians at a later date, when the sailors are released. This then also begs the question....will the Iranian government want to let the sailors go? If surely all the fake admissions of British guilt would be put to rest when they are released, thus rendering all this pointless. It only can make Iran more of an easy target for our media/governments. This is a very odd situation we have here......it seems like their might be a lot more going one than we think. PS - By they way....why do you think things are allowed get seemingly 'out of control'?? It's a little government tactic called Problem, Reaction, Solution. Laying down new order out of chaos. It's how they get things done.

By 'nukes' you mean nuclear weapons...but 1 - Iran does not have nuclear weapons. 2 - Iran have said they want a nuclear power program and they have a right to do so. So..

British Manufactured Gulf Maritime Border Map No such agreed upon border between Iraq and Iran exists, measurements show ship was nearer Iranian coast Paul Joseph Watson Friday, March 30, 2007 In claiming HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters, the British government and the media have covered-up the fact there is no agreed upon Iraqi-Iranian maritime border, as other bizarre coincidences and dubious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis begin to emerge. Former British Ambassador Craig Murray and others are highlighting the fact that the maritime border between Iraq and Iran is contested, and the British have essentially manufactured a border to make it appear as if HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters. The mainstream media has uniformly failed to address this issue. "The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force," claims Murray. "Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one." CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT As illustrated in the Encarta encyclopedia territorial map above, the position of the ship denoted by the red circle is nearer the Iranian border than the Iraq border. The blue circumference touches the edge of the Iranian border. As the Moon of Alabama blog points out, "That boundary is simply not well defined and Iran and Iraq have fought several wars about the Shatt al-Arab and its waterways. There is no binding or otherwise recognized international agreement about the maritime boundaries." "If one would use a maritime boundary defined by equidistance from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, as is commonly (see Art.7) done in such cases, the result would be something like this purple line." CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT As becomes obvious from looking at the map, taking the equidistant measurement from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, the ship is clearly within Iranian territory. Iranian news source IRNA claims that this represents Britain's sixth violation and trespass of Iranian territory in the last three years, while also stating that the western media has been complicit in "a wave of propaganda campaign against Iran immediately after Iranian border guards arrested British marines." Even if you dismiss judging territorial water boundaries by the method detailed above, the fact is that the media parroted carte blanche the British government's version, without even pointing out that there is no recognized and agreed upon Gulf water boundary between Iraq and Iran. Other highly suspicious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis have also begun to emerge. During a BBC Newsnight feature story, it was demonstrated that the Iranian footage of the capture of the British sailors was in large part likely faked and the commentators all but suggested the entire incident was staged or at least constituted "gross negligence" on behalf of the British. Readers have also pointed out the bizarre coincidence of the fact that immediately before the sailors were captured, they were being accompanied by a BBC film crew onboard HMS Cornwall, who filmed a human interest interview with Faye Turney, who has become the poster child of the whole crisis. The interview was broadcast immediately after the sailors were taken hostage and portrayed Turney in a very humanizing light, with pictures of her loved ones in the background. With the crisis deepening and tensions being ratcheted up by the bellicose rhetoric of both Blair and the Iranians, this Gulf of Tonkin style incident is starting to look increasingly dubious as the drumbeat for war grows ever louder.

You are welcome. I own the CD's/Vinyls. I orignially got the Special Vinyl B-sides from further back in this thread because I needed them...but since then have found the vinyls for myself, those were the only two left for me to get so I'm happy now. The only track that I haven't heard yet is: Wheels Over Me (Alleder und Fa Remix) It's on She Came Home For Christmas (First Release) CD Single. Released in 1997 on the Exlibris Label.

It's all about to get very interesting people! The mainstream media are going to have to childishly smear people like never before.

Here you go!! ;) File Name: Special (7'' Vinyl #2).zip Size: 7MB | Download Link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/2bo92q File Name: Special (7'' Vinyl #1).zip Size: 9MB | Download Link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/q1j7r6 File Name: Special Single.zip Size: 68MB | Download Link: http://www.sendspace.com/file/168hyg

Globalists Love Global Warming Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government Paul Joseph Watson Wednesday, March 28, 2007 A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria? The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives. At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice." Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide." Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives. We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies. In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR. "In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." "Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..." Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming. Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes. Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution. The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment. "When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker. Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand. Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.

Only in the BBC World section....this should be important news, yes? The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt. Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies Foreign Office official Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet. But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust". Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested". Mortality rates The Iraq government asks the country's hospitals to report the number of victims of terrorism or military action. Critics say the system was not started until well after the invasion and requires over-pressed hospital staff not only to report daily, but also to distinguish between victims of terrorism and of crime. The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October. It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq. The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people. In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire. Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate. He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole. President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report." But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq." Counting the cost: 650,000 Iraqi dead Guardian - Comment / 28-03-2007 Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003. Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said that The Lancet's study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap". President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report". Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development thought differently. They concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality". The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study". When these recommendations went to the prime minister's advisers, they were horrified. One person briefing Tony Blair wrote: "are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?" A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing The Lancet". The prime minister's adviser finally gave in. He wrote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones". How would the government respond? Would it welcome the Hopkins study as an important contribution to understanding the military threat to Iraqi civilians? Would it ask for urgent independent verification? Would it invite the Iraqi government to upgrade civilian security? Of course, our government did none of these things. Tony Blair was advised to say: "the overriding message is that there are no accurate or reliable figures of deaths in Iraq". His official spokesman went further and rejected the Hopkins report entirely. It was a shameful and cowardly dissembling by a Labour - yes, by a Labour - prime minister. Indeed, it was even contrary to the Americans' own Iraq Study Group report, which concluded last year that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq". This Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it does Tony Blair, is party to a war crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political consensus prevents any judicial or civil society response. Britain is paralysed by its own indifference. At a time when we are celebrating our enlightened abolition of slavery 200 years ago, we are continuing to commit one of the worst international abuses of human rights of the past half-century. It is inexplicable how we allowed this to happen. It is inexplicable why we are not demanding this government's mass resignation. Two hundred years from now, the Iraq war will be mourned as the moment when Britain violated its delicate democratic constitution and joined the ranks of nations that use extreme pre-emptive killing as a tactic of foreign policy. Some anniversary that will be.

Got my Singles 1999-2006 box set this morning. :)

Ominous Signs Suggest Iran War Close Seizure of British marines could be "Gulf of Tonkin" long yearned for by warmongers Paul Joseph Watson Tuesday, March 27, 2007 As tensions surrounding Iran's seizure of 15 British navy personnel continue to build, ominous signs that war is nearing give an indication that this could be the new "Gulf of Tonkin" Bush and Blair have long yearned for to justify air strikes on Iran. The U.S. has escalated war games in the area, "The manoeuvres involve the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, marking the first time the two strike groups have operated in a joint exercise under the US Navy's Fifth Fleet," reports the AFP. Russian news outlets are reporting that such activity represents, "Heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," that closely resembles the situation immediately before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given the Iranians just days to return the marines safely before harsher steps are taken. It's difficult to know who to trust concerning exactly whose waters the marines were in, Iraq's or Iran's, when Ahmadinejad's slender grip on power survives only by feeding his own population war propaganda, while Bush and Blair have become the very iconography of deceit in the modern age. A high ranking Iraqi official expressed his surprise that British forces were even operating in the area. Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, commander of Iraq's territorial waters, told the BBC: "Usually there is no presence of British forces in that area, so we were surprised and we wondered whether the British forces were inside Iraqi waters or inside Iranian regional waters." Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, slammed the spin and rhetoric Tony Blair has cased the crisis in, pointing out that the Royal Navy boarded the ships not to conduct inspections on weapons smuggling, but to look for tax evaders. "In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim," said Murray, adding "For the Royal Navy, to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative." What seems to be unfolding are similar circumstances that led to the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon last summer, where two Israeli soldiers were "kidnapped" after they had crossed the border into Lebanese territory. It seems highly unlikely that the Iranians would risk further international condemnation by kidnapping British marines in Iraqi waters, but whatever the truth, the fact remains that the "coalition of the killing" are no strangers to violating international rules defining sovereignty and kidnapping foreign nationals for political gain. Bush has green-lighted the CIA policy of globe-hopping to snatch terror suspects off the streets of foreign countries, the most high profile case being Islamic cleric Abu Omar in Milan in 2003. On January 11, U.S. military forces raided an Iranian consulate in Arbil and detained five Iranian officials who are still prisoners to this day. Bush and Blair's denouncements of Iran's actions are accompanied by more than a whiff of hypocrisy and if this situation continues to escalate it may become the "Gulf of Tonkin" they have long yearned for to justify ordering air strikes against Ahmadinejad's nuclear and military facilities.

Thing is now - the civilian death toll estimates by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and UK Medical Journal The Lancet have now apparently been accpeted by the government - or at least our government (UK). I was given this information today but oddly I haven't seen this on any news. Now The Lancet is the world's leading independent general medical journal and they estimate that there have been more than 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war. So, Bill O'Reilly shouldn't just ignore these findings completely, like he does. I mean the UN (waste of space) say that the deaths are at 53,000. I mean that's one hell of difference - But since 53,000+ is far too many anyway (based on the illegal nature of the war) O'Reilly should understand that both figures are disgusting. I mean it really looks like there might be at least around 600,000 excess Iraqi deaths. It's beyond sick.

Yeah, I have that version of Special. It's a single mix. Guitars aren't as loud and the bass and vocals are louder..Here - http://www.sendspace.com/file/81bppt (Single Mix) Also, do you mean you want "Zookeeper's Boy" too?

I used to be a big fan when I was younger and off the top of my head I'd say these are the remaining tracks that I can honestly say I still like and I think the you should have. Some are B-Sides from Singles. Slide Away The Masterplan Morning Glory (the Dave Sardy Mix of this is better sounding, I think) Live Forever Underneath The Sky Cigarettes And Alcohol Supersonic Wonderwall Cast No Shadow Champagne Supernova Magic Pie (well, most of it) Let's All Make Believe Rockin' Chair Acquiesce Headshrinker Listen Up Talk Tonight Fade In-Out (it's not ALL bad) Part Of The Queue (not 100% sure about putting this on the list) Guess God Thinks I'm Abel Turn Up The Sun (the Intro and Outro are good anyway) Flashbax Sad Song (actually not as good as remember though) Stay Young Going Nowhere (It's Good) To Be Free Whatever

Ok, I've seen a few requests on the last couple of pages....well, kind of requests but more of a general discussion about various songs and so forth... If anyone needs anything specific then just write it in a post or PM me.... (But writing requests in the thread might help you get things quicker a more people who have the desired media might be able to help with uploading)

Debunking NY Post's Tabloid Hit Piece On Sheen/O'Donnell As sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session The New York Post has produced a typically and purposefully ignorant hit piece against both Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen for going public with their views on 9/11, commenting that they should "keep their traps shut". As far as hit pieces go, gossip writer Richard Johnson's scribe is about as sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session, but considering his other stories today were about Paul McCartney sending a bunch of flowers and Jay-Z making a bet with the editor of Playboy, we shouldn't expect too much. The piece, clearly aimed at those who don't have the attention span to read the entire word "Hollywood," headlined as it is "H'Wood," labels Sheen as a "hooker-loving Hollywood hunk," denounces his father, Martin Sheen, for having been arrested in the past for protesting and calls Loose Change a "loopy YouTube documentary." Choosing to focus on name calling and slandering character assassinations, Rupert Murdoch's Post cannot even get the most basic of facts correct. Whatreallyhappened.com's Michael Rivero is referenced in the piece but is referred to as "Matt Rivero". Any visitor to Whatreallyhappened.com will see instantly that at the top of the page it says Michael Rivero's Whatreallyhappened.com, proving that writer Richard Johnson has not even looked at the website he is trouncing, a running theme where baseless debunking and awful journalism is concerned. Johnson needs to stick to reporting on Britney Spears' latest haircut if he can't even be bothered to conduct cursory investigative research. After a healthy serving of ad hominem name-calling slurs, Johnson finally addresses Rosie O'Donnell's comments, stating that she is repeating a "widely debunked rundown" of Michael or (Matt as they have it) Rivero's discredited theories about Building 7. Putting aside the subtle assertion that all questions and theories about the collapse of WTC 7 belong to Michael Rivero, it is entirely incorrect and untruthful to state that they have been discredited and debunked. Indeed, it is the official narrative that has been repeatedly discredited and debunked. Both NIST and FEMA have had to change portions of their reports on several occasions because the conclusions failed to fit the evidence. Neither body has yet been able to produce an official report that can explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11. Debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continually cite "raging infernos" inside the building, yet officially only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The NIST report concluded after extensive controlled recreation experiments that it could not comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained. Remember also that experts stated about Building 7: A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures. Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in Building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Can sporadic fires on just eight floors of a 47 story building do that? NO, according to NIST, they cannot. Is the New York Post suggesting that NIST's theories are "twisted"? That is the information that Sheen and O'Donnell are respectively going off, not just some made up nonsense from cyberspace. Sheen, O'Donnell and celebrities like them are not simply "repeating" the views of "conspiracy theorists," they are relaying the views of experts in their field. People such as Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories who stepped forward shortly after the release of the NIST report to point out that UL testimony to NIST regarding the ability of jet fuel fire to melt steel was inaccurate. Kevin Ryan was fired from UL shortly thereafter. Several demolition experts are also on record as stating that they believe WTC 7's collapse to have occurred as a result of a controlled implosion. Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position to this day. The Post also makes reference to WTC owner Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" comment, also suggesting only insane "conspiracists" could take it to mean an admission of controlled demolition. However, the fact remains that no one has been able to explain this comment. A spokesperson for Silverstein later attempted to explain the comment away by stating that by "pull it" he had meant "evacuate the fire fighting operation". The problem is, according to FEMA, there were no fire fighting procedures in Building 7 and fire-fighters were outside of the collapse zone that had been set up many hours before WTC 7 fell. The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five, stating "...the fire-fighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities." In more recent revelations that the Post fails to address, it was discovered that the BBC had reported that Building 7 had collapsed up to 30 minutes before it actually fell. This indicated that the press were being spoon fed information about what was going to happen on 9/11. Debunkers have charged that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious? The BBC has still not named its source of this information on 9/11. In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular Mechanics relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of Building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of the structure: According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down. However as we have previously reported, Building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing. It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest Building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is totally untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse? The fact remains that the Building 7 saga has not been debunked no matter how many times debunkers, or in the case of the Post poor excuses for reporters, say it has been. 7 thus remains the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11. The hit piece also contains leaked details of the upcoming Loose Change Final Cut movie, in which it is announced that Charlie Sheen is set to narrate the documentary. Arising out of Alex Jones' role as a consultant on the project, we have known this information for over a year and withheld it for the very important reason that the project's integrity during its embryonic phase depended on maintaining its secrecy. We confirmed that the information had been leaked to the media on Monday but now it is verified that the Post already knew the details before they tried to trick William Rodriguez into admitting it during a subsequent conversation. The project has now been compromised as a result of a blabbermouth on the 9/11 truth circuit, the identity of which remains unknown, that spilled his guts to the Post's debunker in chief Richard Johnson, but the net effect will probably only raise the film's profile. Details of the film leaking early, along with the Post being mandated to report on the comments of Rosie O'Donnell, could only make the entire project and 9/11 truth in general go supernova.

Clear evidence that Mossad and the U.S. are trying to start a war with Iran which could IMHO be armed with nuclear weapons. Why hasn't Former Deputy Defense Minister Alireza Askari appeared on TV in the West Mssrs Bush and Ohlmert.? Could a Missing Iranian Spark a War? Thursday, Mar. 22, 2007 By ROBERT BAER Former Iranian deputy defense minister Ali Reza Asgari. Fars News/ Reuters http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1601814,00.html I've tried my best to find out what happened to the man who could spark a war with Iran, but he seems to have disappeared like a diamond in an inkwell. And it makes me nervous. General Ali Reza Asgari, a former intelligence officer in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and deputy defense minister until 2005, was last seen in public around December 7 in Istanbul. Iran says Israel and the United States kidnapped him, presumably to coerce him into telling lies about Iran. The Washington Post has reported he is in U.S. custody, spilling his guts, and more recently the New York Times reported that the German defense minister, when asked about Asgari's whereabouts, said "I cannot say anything on this issue." But both the U.S. and Israel deny having him, let alone kidnapping him. Normally, vanished intelligence officers barely merit one short paragraph on page eight. Asgari is different, though. As the IRGC commander in Lebanon in the late eighties and early nineties, he knows dirty secrets, secrets that could be used to justify going to war with Iran. Asgari was in the IRGC's chain of command when it was kidnapping and assassinating Westerners in Lebanon in the eighties. Asgari knows a lot about other IRGC-ordered, Lebanon-based terrorist attacks, including the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. As IRGC commander in Lebanon, Asgari was also one of Hizballah's stepfathers. In the late eighties and early nineties, he was Hizballah Secretary General's Hasan Nasrallah's primary Iranian contact, and certainly in a position now to provide evidence of Nasrallah's involvement in terrorism. Asgari was the primary Iranian contact for one of the world's most lethal and capable terrorists, 'Imad Fa'iz Mughniyah. Mughniyah is indicted in the U.S. for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the murder of a Navy diver. The bad news for Hizballah and Iran doesn't end there. Asgari would be able to tell us about Hizballah's secret military commanders, its overseas networks, and possibly its cells in the U.S. A friend close to Hizballah's leadership tells me Hizballah has gone to battle quarters, concluding Asgari's 'kidnapping' is a prelude for its next round with Israel. The more important question is what Asgari's possible defection would mean for this Administration's plans for Iran. Nothing is certain when it comes to Iran but here's what I think we should look for: If Asgari re-surfaces in the next couple months with a detailed, convincing bill of indictment against Iran and Hizballah (unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's supposed confession), we should expect a confrontation. For instance, in the late eighties Hizballah, under IRGC orders, sent plastic explosives to secret cells around the world. Only one shipment was intercepted. The others are presumably still in place. If Asgari helps us dig one up, the Administration has a propaganda weapon it never had going into the Iraq war. On the other hand, if Asgari remains in his inkwell, the Bush administration may have decided to leave Iran alone. Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down