GazeboflossUK

Claim: Bin Laden Told Hamza Al-Qaeda Not Behind 9/11 Statement dovetails with Osama's previous attempts to distance himself from attack responsibility Paul Joseph Watson Thursday, January 18, 2007 A claim attributed to a friend of one of the six men accused of plotting to detonate bombs on London's underground tube system on July 21 2005, suggests that Osama bin Laden personally told hook handed cleric Abu Hamza that Al-Qaeda was not behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. The London Independent today reports that Steven Bentley, a school friend of accused would-be suicide bomber Yassin Omar, was told by Omar that he did not think Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Omar based his conclusion on what he was told by extremist London cleric Abu Hamza, currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, who had personally met Bin Laden. Bin Laden's apparent attempt to distance himself from involvement in 9/11 dovetails with statements made shortly after the event in which he told a Pakistani newspaper that he was not involved in the attacks. "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States," Bin Laden told Ummat, "As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle." The supposed Osama "confession video" in which the terrorist leader discusses how the attacks were carried out has been widely debunked as a hoax. On closer analysis, the individual in the tape is clearly not Bin Laden and he makes statements completely inconsistent with Bin Laden's previous public comments. Other so-called Al-Qaeda tapes have been directly traced back to the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld. Though the information provided by Bentley is third or fourth hand, it makes interesting reading nonetheless when compared with previous statements from individuals with close ties to Bin Laden The White House regularly intones that critics of President Bush are in some way aiding the enemy but it was not until recently that the media picked up on a similar tack in trying to smear anyone who questions the official version of 9/11 as being sympathetic with Al-Qaeda or even a recruiting aid for terrorists. One day after the alleged liquid bomb plot to simultaneously blow up ten transatlantic airliners, CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour blamed alternative documentaries about 9/11 for radicalizing many Muslims in England and around the world, and leading them to 'succumb to conspiracy theories.'

This resolution is a "non-binding" resolution, so what does it mean? Well, at least it's a public show of opposition.

We did. I know. Everytime we had the ball it just seemed as if someone was magically turning down the speed of the ball - we looked very sluggish.

Senators oppose Iraq troop boost BBC News Three leading US senators have announced agreement on a resolution to oppose US President George W Bush's plan to increase troop numbers in Iraq. The group - two Democrats and a Republican - said the plan was not in America's interests, urging an early transfer of security to Iraqi leaders. The move came as Democrats - who control Congress - began their own initiatives to block the deployment. But the White House said Mr Bush would continue to proceed with his plan. Under the new strategy announced last week, Mr Bush wants to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, the majority of them to violence-hit Baghdad, in a bid improve security and end sectarian clashes. 'No support' The three senators behind the non-binding resolution are Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin, and Republican Chuck Hagel, a long-standing critic of the war. "Support is not there for the president's policy in Iraq - the sooner he recognises that reality and acts upon it, the better off all of us will be" Sen Joseph Biden "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq," the resolution said. "The United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces," it said. Sen Biden said that the US presence in Iraq could only be sustained with support from Americans and the backing of Congress. "Support is not there for the president's policy in Iraq," he said. "The sooner he recognises that reality and acts upon it, the better off all of us will be." The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says that the resolution would have no legislative effect, but would offer a way for like-minded senators to express opposition to Mr Bush's plan without having to take steps that could expose them to accusations of endangering American troops. Democrats also stepped up efforts to thwart Mr Bush. Sen Christopher Dodd introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for any troop increase in Iraq, while in the House of Representatives, a bill from three Democrats called for the withdrawal of US troops within six months. Senator Clinton's remarks come as the US presidential race hots up And a potential candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, Sen Hillary Clinton, said she opposed the escalation and called for a cap on US troops in Iraq. But the White House continues to argue that Congress has little room for manoeuvre since funds for the president's proposed troop increase have already been approved, our correspondent says. 'Get a lot worse' Mr Bush, meanwhile, spent the day holding meetings with sceptical Republican lawmakers in a bid to shore up support for the deployment. White House spokesman Tony Snow said the congressional resolutions would not affect Mr Bush's thinking. "The president has obligations as a commander in chief," he said. "And he will go ahead and execute them." On Tuesday, Mr Bush defended his plan in a televised interview, saying that the US had to up its engagement in Iraq so that the violence there did not "spiral out of control". "If we don't help them stop, it's going to get a lot worse," he said. In Iraq on Wednesday, at least 15 people were killed and more than 30 injured in a suicide car bomb attack at a busy market in the Shia district of Sadr City. The attack came hours after at least seven policemen and civilians died when a lorry exploded near a police station in the northern city of Kirkuk. On Tuesday, more than 70 people died in double bombings at a university in a Shia district in Baghdad.

It's actually interesting how this show is put together... Is 24 Propaganda? Is The Pope Catholic? Talking heads omit fact that U.S. government, Neo-Con ideologues met with cast members to run PR for war on terror Wednesday, January 17, 2007 To coincide with the start of a new season of Fox's much vaunted 24 program, MSNBC featured a debate asking whether the lead character, Jack Bauer, was a right-wing propagandist. What the talking heads and others that defend the neutrality of the show consistently fail to omit is the fact that 24 cast and crew members met with U.S. government officials and Neo-Con ideologues to run PR for the war on terror last year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iagkPq-7VSQ&eurl= Those that defend the show against allegations that it is merely fearmongering propaganda used to prop up the facade of the "war on terror" either point to the wildly unrealistic tone of the plotlines or to examples where it isn't always Muslim jihadists behind the terror. We can go back and forth all day discussing the intricacies of the plot, instances where the oil cartels are sponsoring the terror or certain individuals within the government turn heel and become bad guys. The majority of the American population do not watch entire episodes back to back for a whole day like some unfortunate souls choose to waste their time doing. The important aspect to make a judgment on is the impression that the show leaves as a whole and certain contextual storylines that are repeated in almost every episode. This is what you come away with from catching a few minutes of 24, be it channel surfing or watching trailers - terrorists are everywhere and terror attacks are inevitably going to increase in both number and severity in the United States. The only way to stop terrorists is to violate the U.S. Constitution in a plethora of different ways and torture people into making confessions. In the current season, concentration camps are built to detain suspects. No matter which way you slice it or dice it, that's what the average American gets out of 24. Little surprise it is therefore that the U.S. government has chosen to attach itself to the show, a trend mimicked by Neo-Con ideologues. In June 2006, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff joined a panel of 24 cast and crew members at a Heritage Foundation event that was moderated by none other than hillbilly heroin popping Neo-Con talk show walrus Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh put the morning forum in jeopardy when he planted a kiss on the lips of 24 actress Mary Lynn Rajskub, causing the media in attendance to almost projectile vomit their breakfast. The conference also featured numerous self-described national security experts and even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You can watch the two hour event by clicking here. The scope of the event was supposedly to discern if 24 was like real counterterrorism efforts, which is like making the argument that Teen Wolf is an accurate portrayal of the NBA. Everyone knows 24 is over hyped and overblown but that's not the point of this debate. The more telling aspect of this visit was when Chertoff embraced and praised the actions of the characters fictionalized in the show as an example of the kind of dedication Homeland Security should be showing towards fighting terrorism (including presumably season one's patriotic scene where our hero Bauer cuts off a villain's head with a hacksaw). We have Limbaugh tonguing the lead actress and Chertoff lauding the virtues of the show in a public speech - and yet some still argue it's not Neo-Con propaganda! What do they need as proof? George Bush having Kiefer Sutherland's baby? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have both publicly praised the show as one of their favorites, but to have Chertoff give the opening speech at an event that used the popularity of 24 as PR for the war on terror, provides no clearer conclusion than the fact that the Bush administration loves 24 - because it feeds the fear. It's a completely unjustified fear that can be ridiculed with the knowledge that peanuts and accident causing deer kill more Americans every single year on average than acts of terror and the fact that there's a September 11 death toll equivalent on U.S. roads every month. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Y0MN4SXmA&eurl= The show is also embraced by Bush bootlickers such as Laura Ingraham, one of a gaggle of press whores recently invited to the White House to get their orders, who told Fox News that the average American's love of the show is a referendum for "tough tactics" (torture) against anyone considered to be with "Al Qaeda" whether they be American citizens or not. In addition to tacit spoken approvals from Bush admin bigwigs, big budget film and television productions that make use of government and military facilities, technology and hardware have to acquiesce to on-site narks who vet the script and demand that changes are made unless the relevant agencies of the state are represented in a positive light, and there's no reason to conclude 24 is any different. Whether by accident or design, 24 is indoctrinating a generation of Americans into believing that the future of the country will be characterized by paranoia, fear and mass terror, and that the only way to combat such chaos is to give the government unlimited power to "protect" us. Only the government itself can benefit from such brainwashing and that's why the Bush administration and 24 are joined at the hip in a coordinated propaganda assault against the American people.

As a Newcastle fan all I can say is.......dagnamit.

Did The Government Force BBC To Drop Menezes & 7/7 Docu-Dramas? New revelations may have influenced decision to can recreations Tuesday, January 16, 2007 The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent man who was gunned down by British police in the wake of the London bombings, has today accused the BBC of aiding a cover up after plans to film a politically sensitive docu-drama about his murder were unceremoniously dropped. The filiming of a docu-drama about the 7/7 London bombers has also been suddenly abandoned. The London Guardian reports that the BBC shelved both projects because, despite unearthing "difficult or dark" new evidence, it claims it has given the events enough coverage on news and current affairs programming. But de Menezes cousin Alex Pereira said: "They are trying to make people forget what happened. It is all political. If the BBC just wanted to do the right thing, they would show the programme. To show the truth is not illegal, to show how the police treated me is not a crime. But they won't because they want to protect the criminals, the police. All reports say they are innocent in everything they have done. We can't prove there is a cover up but we think it is a cover up .Because it will look bad for the police, they won't do that because the BBC is part of the government." The move is indeed a strange one given that the BBC had, according to the award-winning producer of the project, previously been touting the drama as "the most important television commission of the year". So did the government have a hand to play in the decision as Pereira suggests? It is not so far fetched to imagine so, particularly given that the BBC has been on a tight leash ever since the 45 minute warning revelations and the dodgy Iraq dossier business in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. The government has certainly gone to great lengths in the past to cover up the murder of de Menezes. It would be no surprise if this was a continuation of that policy. It is also telling that MI5 is currently bracing itself for further disclosures over tube bombing intelligence "failures" linked to 7/7. These revelations have seemingly forced Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director-general of MI5, to step down in April, a move some suggest is a pre-emptive attempt by the security services to avoid embarrassment. Last weekend it was revealed that contrary to the official line, MI5 had detailed knowledge of the lead bomber, Mohammad Sidique Khan, and had been tracking him for two years before the bombings took place. These revelations are interesting given that we have shown the bombers were more than likely unwitting patsies. Khan's conversations were taped and his car was bugged previous to the bombings, why go to such lengths to keep track of a man who was at the same time deemed not to be "top priority". In December last year the Menezes family lost their High Court battle over a decision not to charge any police officers in connection with the shooting. Indeed, some of the officers involved have since been promoted (See also Police commander in Menezes case seeks promotion) and have killed again. One officer was even rewarded with a new job as a sky marshall trainer. The officer was picked because top brass say he has "proven ability to act swiftly and decisively" in emergencies." Yeah by shooting an innocent man in the face eight times, the ideal role model for 'shoot first ask questions later' cops everywhere. We have previously covered the catalogue of cover ups concerning the Menezes shooting, including the fact that the officers knew he was not a bomber, the faking of tube logs, lying about the existence of cctv footage and even erasing some parts of it, as well as putting out all manner of false information. Despite having knowingly lied about the events and further attempted to misdirect the public and cover up the incident, Met chief Ian Blair has also escaped any punishment. The government does not want any further disclosure on this issue because it is happy to let the public believe that targeted assassinations on British soil by Israeli trained death squads are now the norm and there's not a damn thing we can do about it apart from sit down and shut up. Otherwise we just might become the next target of her Majesty's secret death squad.

Brown Answers Bilderberg Question By getting a lower minister to refuse to answer it Tuesday, January 16, 2007 Last week, British MP Norman Baker, who had previously asked Prime Minister Tony Blair to reveal details of any Bilderberg meetings he has attended, has also now officially asked the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, and most likely next Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to reveal details of his own attendances at Bilderberg. Baker's question has now been "answered", but not by Brown himself, by John Healey, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The question and "answer" appeared today in the parliamentary records: Norman Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which years since 1997 (a) he and (b) other Treasury Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group. [115142] John Healey: Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings. Translation: The government is not accountable, it can meet to form and implement policy with whichever unelected officials and foreign business interests it chooses without telling you anything.

It's already pretty bad - but that many more stores is ridiculous. If this carries on, there's only going to be GAP, Internet Café's and coffee shops doing business in five years time.... There's far better/cheaper indie coffee shops around too, if you look in the right places.

Iran Is Target Of Military Build Up Huge Military deployment in Gulf is ominous, neocon propaganda is mounting Steve W Infowars.net Monday, January 15, 2007 The Defense Secretary Robert Gates today announced that the massive increase in military power in the Persian Gulf is directly aimed at Iran. Gates' comments follow a weekend of intense and heavy loaded rhetoric on the part of many neocon figureheads, signaling that the faintest spark could ignite a huge escalation of conflict in the middle east. Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future." Gates said that Patriot anti-missile missiles, aircraft carriers, and cruise-missile-firing ships have been deployed in order to show Iran that the US means business and will not be distracted by the turmoil in Iraq. The build up has now been going on for weeks and shows no sign of being purely a warning. The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. The naval forces are there to pre-empt Iranian interference with oil shipments, which would be immediate retaliations to any strike. A former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, has today revealed that he believes a missile attack on the Iranians is imminent, while Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran. Indeed, the Fars news agency reported yesterday that there have already been rumours of nonexistent clashes between Iranian and American battleships in the Persian Gulf waters. A senior Iranian official viewed the rumor as "a part of the enemies' psychological war on Iran". Last week US-led forces in northern Iraq arrested five Iranians who the US military says were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq - a claim Iran has also rejected. This sudden assertion is comical.Why would Iranian Shi’ites want to arm Iraqi Sunnis, who want to kill Iraqi Shi’ites allied with Iran? A few appearances on the US propaganda outlets by the neocons are supposed to convince us that this is now the case however. Dick Cheney appeared on Fox news and, between denouncing critics of the Iraq war, accused Iran of "fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq". Meanwhile the national security adviser, arch neocon Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq", at the same time not ruling out a skirmish inside Iran. In reality what the neocons have dubbed as 'evidence' of Iranian meddling, including the presence of Iranian officials, in Iraq, is not troubling to Iraq's Shia political parties, many of whose senior figures fled Saddam and lived for over twenty years in exile in Iran. Such figures see a powerful Shia neighbour in Iran, a friend and a religious and political exemplar in the midst of crisis. And while the Iraqi government is actually talking to Iran, comfortably resolving security issues and praising Iranian cooperation, the neocons in the White House are running around foaming at the mouth, refusing to engage in talks and deploying war ships. As the London Guardian has reported, Donald Rumsfeld and the AEI have developed a strategy for regime change in Iran that does not involve a ground invasion. Weapons of mass destruction will provide the rationale for military action, though it won't be limited to attacks on a few weapons factories. It will include limiting Iranian retaliatory capability, using bombers to destroy up to 10,000 targets in the first day of any war, and special forces flying in to destroy anything that's left. The neocons would then be able to install another puppet regime and further control the region, plundering it's wealth and resources, while provoking the Muslim and Arab world to fight amongst themselves and hopefully, in the words of Henry Kissinger, kill each other off. In other developments, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich stated: "if Bush attacks Iran, all bets[regarding impeachment] are off." Later he added, "We need to safeguard our Constitution." If the President takes steps towards another war, Kucinich warned, Congress could make "an active effort" toward impeachment. "The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on." Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts has asserted that the only way to stop the impending attack on Iran is to press for immediate impeachment: "Americans don’t have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush’s “surge” speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East."

Gareth = Jikashi-techiri BUT it actually is GARESU ...and in Japanese text it is:

I think you'll have to get a new one anyway at some point....2010 if I remember.

Indeed...I was going to say that too. But you already have so....I won't.

I heard that too.

Here's some more on the unlikely move......... TOON IN FOR RONALDO? Newcastle have been linked with a shock double move for Ronaldo and Antonio Cassano. The Real Madrid duo have both fallen out with Italian boss Fabio Capello, who has made it clear he's keen to offload the strikers during the transfer window and the Magpies could be ready to swoop. Ronaldo is reportedly available for £5million this month and it now appears the Brazilian star could have played his last game for the club. However if Glenn Roeder is able to convince Ronaldo to move to St James Park then they will have to pay out wages of at least £90,000 a week while Casano won't come cheap either. The Spanish club's president Ramón Calderón has said: "It seems that Ronaldo is no longer in the coach's plans and that is the way it is. "There is the possibility of something happening before January 31 and if that happens then we shall see. In regards to Cassano, Capello confirmed he's no longer in his thinking and is soon to be through the exit door of the Bernabeu . Capello said on Saturday: "Cassano does not enter into my plans."

Hahaha - that's the perfect answer. You go straight to the top of the class. My god.

Field Music - Tones Of Town Jaga Jazzist - What We Must

We all have standard DVD film dual layer discs that come to around that size...6-7GB. Full quality, full bit rate, uncompressed HD Video in 1080p needs more. Transfer rates on standard DVD average about 5 Mbps and max out at 9 Mbps. Standard HDTV broadcast is at 19.4 Mbps. Clearly in the range of performance defined by DVD and HDTV as encoded in MPEG-2, more data and higher bit rates produce better images. Today's HDTV broadcasts on high resolution video displays look extremely good, and certainly they are head and shoulders above DVD..... Now, HD-DVD's maximum bit rate of 36.55 Mbps is about double that of broadcast HDTV. That by itself is enough to enable it to deliver spectacular picture and sound, the likes of which we have not yet experienced.

^ indeed. And I'm sure there's plenty of time for at least 3 new illegal wars in that time. Which in turn will cost us all.

Ahhrg!, I know... This taxing idea that is looking likely to happen is bad, very bad. We get taxed a ridiculous amount already - now they want more - and unless people are just going to throw away their car keys and stop travelling it looks like they are going to fleece us once again. The government and major parties regard all motorists and people except themselves to be milch cows, to be robbed blind and harrassed. Also, we need to make sure we actually know who owns our roads - We do, not the government but the 'populace' in general paid for them and in turn own the roads. If they start adopting the current US 'toll road' policy (sell off our networks to major foreign corporations who then gain huge wealth when we use our roads) then we need to seriously kick off about the issue. They have already started to copy the US by selling off british ports to foreign conglomerates. In June last year Associated British Ports (ABP) who ran 21 British ports agreed to a £2.5bn ($4.6bn) takeover from a consortium led by Goldman Sachs. Sold ports were - Ayr, Barrow, Barry, Cardiff, Fleetwood, Garston, Goole, Grimsby, Hull, Immingham, Ipswich, King's Lynn, Lowestoft, Newport, Plymouth, Port Talbot, Silloth, Southampton, Swansea, Teignmouth, Troon. Earlier in 2006 P&O was bought by Dubai Ports World for $6.8bn earlier this year, while Mersey Docks and PD Ports have also been taken over during the past year. ALSO - BAA, the owner of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, agreed to be bought by the Spanish company Grupo Ferrovial. I mean, when will it stop? When all our infrostructure and interests is sold off and run by foreign companies? It's all about shady deals which make rich private shareholders even more wealthy. Thing is, alot of these deals give very influencial and powerful people, many of them not the type you'd like to know, even more power and control too. Who are we going to complain to when a outside company makes changes we (the people) don't agree with? Our government are crazy to allow these things to happen. So crazy that they can only be currupt at a high level. We are being sold out and it's worrying - as of course it should be.

Wow, really lucky.

Well, I'm happy. What a win against Spurs today.....I know we didn't have much of the ball at times during the game but with a weakened team out we managed to get three goals while Spurs only got two....and that's that's a win. Special goal by Martins as well.

Well, your ears don't like her then. And that's fine.

I've said it before and I'll say it once more, she's a musical genius.

She's a musical genius.