GazeboflossUK

I tell you something - I think MSNBC's Keith Olbermann pretty much said everything I was thinking. http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1949634&postcount=53

London Tube Poster (I used to see these all the time) Tuesday, January 9, 2007 This is an actual British Government poster outside a London Tube Station. Looks like they ripped it straight from the set of 'Brazil.'" It's a gorgeous work of art. The colors in the bus windows are appealing. However.... Update: Photos of eyes keep people honest. A short article by Clive Thompson in the New York Times Magazine describes an experiment at the psychology department at Newcastle University. There's a self-service coffee station where people are asked to pay for the coffee and biscuits they take using the honor system. For 10 weeks this spring, they alternately taped two posters over the coffee station. During one week, it was a picture of flowers; during the other, it was a pair of staring eyes. Then they sat back to watch what would happen. A remarkable pattern emerged. During the weeks when the eyes poster stared down at the coffee station, coffee and tea drinkers contributed 2.76 times as much money as in the weeks when flowers graced the wall. Evidence of psychology being used to subconciously "manufacture consent".

I haven't read this entire horse shit thread but it's well, horse shit.

You'll be truly amazed.

There's a "package" joke crying out from this story.

He's got his eyes closed...which is a good sign....she's got a good egg there....he loves her. However she has her eyes open.....what a fony! Someone should show Jupiter this picture so he doesn't end up working all day to give money to some "open eyed kisser" girlfriend who's only after his cash.

It's all set to get colder in the coming couple of weeks .It'll snow where I am for sure, around 22nd Jan or so (North County Durham) - which is good because it doesn't feel like the year has even begun properly until snow has shut down my town. Windy as hell here at present and it has been so since september.

Olbermann: Bush's 'dangerous, even Messianic certitude' helped create 'a presidency of Cliff Notes' Raw Story Friday, January 12, 2007 One night after Bush's address to the nation, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann blasted the president's "dangerous, even Messianic certitude." "Only this President could extol the 'thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,' and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — 'engage Syria and Iran' - and transform it into 'threaten Syria and Iran' — when Al-Qaeda would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when President Ahmmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us," Olberman said. The MSNBC anchor added, "This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J46RGzcxzMg&eurl= Excerpts from Olbermann's special comment: # And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment about the President's address last night. Only this President, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even Messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran. Only this President, could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say "where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" — only to follow that, by proposing to repeat the identical mistake in Iran. Only this President could extol the "thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group," and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — "engage Syria and Iran" - and transform it into "threaten Syria and Iran" — when Al-Qaeda would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when President Ahmmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us. This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.

Video: Military analyst believes recent US actions could signal Iran conflict soon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHXrs9o1vw&eurl= Raw Story Friday, January 12, 2007 US forces raided a facility that Iran claimed was being used for diplomatic purposes, alleging that Iranians were funneling weapons to the enemy. Six Iranians were captured in the raid at the consulate, with one being released earlier today. Several analysts consider parts of President Bush's latest speech as an obvious threat to Iran. One, John Pike of GlobalSecurity, notes that U.S. actions could signal a conflict in the near future. "It's really unclear what the President was saying," Pike said. "It's a little more clear what the United States is actually doing, [President Bush] was basically calling on Iran not to interfere with Iraq, not to further interfere with Iraq." Pike added, "But, also, look at what he said the United States is going to do. As previously reported, several weeks ago, the aircraft carrier, John Stennis, is being dispatched to the Persian Gulf. That gives the United States two aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Round the clock operations. He also, surprisingly, announced that the United States was going to be deploying Patriot anti-missile interceptors to the region. It's difficult to imagine whose missiles those would be shooting down other than Iran. It's looks to me like the United States is, at least, raising its capabilities in preparation for possible military confrontation with Iran." Pike provides a time frame in which the U.S. or Israel might first strike Iran, explaining, "I think the month of February is certainly a time of heightened probability. It's very difficult to understand exactly what the thinking is at the White House and in the Israeli government but for sometime now we've been saying that 2007 is probably the time, if there's going to be military action, it's probably going to come this year. Possible as soon as next month. Probably no later that August of this year." Nearly a year ago, Pike warned about a "cycle of escalation." "When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about [military force], I hope they will sit down and think about everything the ayatollahs could do to make our lives miserable and what we will do to discourage them," John Pike said in Feb. 2006. "There could be a cycle of escalation," Pike added.

You know, I thought the exact same thing at first.

HD-DVD goes beyond 50GB with new disc By Henning Molbaek FIRST PUBLISHED Jan 9, 2007 Toshiba has announced a new 51GB HD-DVD Rom disc at this year's CES. Beating Blu-ray by 1GB, Toshiba today said that they had successfully created a triple layer HD-DVD disc that could contain 51GB worth of data with 17GB on each layer. "Continued improvement in disc mastering technology has achieved further minimization in the recording pit, supporting a further boost in capacity to 17GB in single layer and a full 51GB on a single-sided triple-layer disc. Toshiba has confirmed the disc structure and its successful operation." said the press release. "This time-tested physical structure offers proven volume manufacturing at little cost increment." Toshiba has now closed the storage gab with Blu-ray, which can store 50GB on a dual-layered disc. It will be exciting to see if this has any effect on the raging format war. Stay tuned.

9/11 Misdirection You Tube Friday, January 12, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaVV-NgnB7c&eurl=

White House Refused to Allow Still Photography at Bush Speech Daryl Lang PDN Online Friday, January 12, 2007 NEW YORK The White House broke with tradition Wednesday night and refused to let photojournalists shoot still pictures of the president at the podium after his prime-time address on the Iraq war. As a result, newspapers and wire services had little choice but to run low-quality frame grabs from the video of the speech. An official handout photo from the White House, which most news outlets rejected, was the only other option. Caught in a bind on deadline, some newspapers ran the official White House photo with no disclosure that it was provided by the government. The Associated Press and Reuters, who refused to accept the handout photo, sent their members notices explaining that frame grabs from the White House video pool would be their only photo coverage of the speech. "Reuters News Pictures regrets that due to restrictions imposed by the White House, Reuters will not be able to provide still photographs from President Bush's White House address on Iraq," the Reuters bulletin said. Normally after the president gives a televised address, a pool of news photographers takes pictures of the commander-in-chief standing behind the podium. The press was notified late Wednesday that photographers would not be allowed in after the Iraq address, says J. David Ake, assistant chief of bureau for photos at the AP in Washington. Ake says no reason was given for the limited access. Ake says the AP always transmits video stills of a presidential address, and many outlets choose to run them because they are an accurate portrayal of the speech. "The difference [Wednesday] was there was no alternative," Ake says. Dennis Brack, a longtime White House photographer and president of the White House News Photographers Association (WHNPA), calls the limited access "unacceptable" and says it is very unusual for a presidential address to be closed to photographers. "It's not the first time I'm sure, but it's very infrequent, and I've been around since LBJ's time," Brack says. "The speech was a very historic speech of news value, and they elected to manage it as a public relations function." The Los Angeles Times and USA Today were among the papers that published a blurry video still of the president on their front pages Thursday. The New York Times ran a video still -- complete with the C-SPAN logo -- as its lead art. Other papers ran the handout photo, which was taken by official White House photographer Eric Draper. The Washington Post ran it on the front page credited to "ERIC DRAPER – THE WHITE HOUSE." Like many papers, the Post also illustrated its story with a photo of troops in Iraq. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran the handout photo as its lead art and crediting it to "ERIC DRAPER/McClatchy Tribune," citing a news service that transmitted the photograph. The Journal-Constitution's front page ran no disclosure that Draper is employed by the White House. Chris Stanfield, director of photography for the Journal-Constitution, says the paper does not normally run White House handout photos. Since this handout photo was almost identical to what people saw on TV, "It didn't bother me as much last night." Still, Stanfield says he would have preferred to run a shot from a different angle, such as a wide shot of the room the president was in, if such a picture had been available. Last year the WHNPA complained that the Bush administration was too often closing events to photographers and asking the press to rely on official photographs instead. The WHNPA says the practice allows the White House to only show the images it wants people to see. Additionally, official White House photos tend to be posed and of little news value, the WHNPA says. Of course, controlling the photo coverage isn't the same as controlling the story. Thursday's New York Daily News dutifully reproduced the official handout photo of the president's speech on its front page – underneath the headline "SORRY ... BUT I'M SENDING 21,500 MORE OF YOU OFF TO WAR."

Keeping all eyes focused on Iraq while Bush and Israel plot attack on Iran Mike Whitney Online Journal Friday, January 12, 2007 Even a cursory review of Bush’s speech shows that the president is less concerned with "security" in Baghdad than he is with plans to attack Iran. Paul Craig Roberts was correct in his article Wednesday when he questioned whether all the hoopla over a surge was just "an orchestrated distraction" to draw attention away from the real war plan. ("Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan") Apparently, it is. As Roberts noted, "The US Congress and the media are focused on President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran." Roberts’ analysis is further supported by yesterday’s news that American troops stormed the "Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and arrested 5 employees." (Reuters) Iran had set up the embassy at the request of the Kurdish governor-general who was not informed of US intentions to raid the facility and kidnap its employees. The American soldiers confiscated computers and documents just five hours after Bush had threatened Iran in his address to the nation. Clearly, Bush is looking for a way to provoke a military confrontation with Iran. Now he has five Iranian hostages at his disposal to help him achieve that goal. Will the mullahs overreact or will they show restraint and try to prevent a larger conflict? Bush’s hostility towards Iran was evident in comments he made in Wednesday night’s speech: "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." "Seek and destroy"? Is that the plan? A region-wide conflagration with results as uncertain as they are in Iraq? So far, there’s no solid evidence that Iran is "providing material support for attacks on American troops." All the same, the administration has consistently used "material support" as the basis for preemptive war. In fact, the so-called Bush Doctrine is predicated on the assumption that the US is free to attack whomever it chooses if it perceives a threat to its national security. The normal rules of self-defense or "imminent danger" no longer apply. Bush knows that if Iran were seriously involved in arming the Iraqi resistance, we’d be seeing the Russian-made, armor-piercing rocket launchers that were used so effectively by Hezbollah during their 34 day war with Israel. That hasn’t been the case. Iran is undoubtedly active in Iraq, but in ways that are much subtler than Bush claims. In fact, Bush’s great ally, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who runs the feared Badr Brigade out of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, has strong ties to Iran (having lived there for 20 years.) He is probably using the US military to remove his enemies (the Sunni-backed resistance and al Sadr’s Mehdi Army) before he turns his attention to his US benefactors. Iran clearly has interests in Iraq, but it is the Bush administration’s reckless war that has assured that Iran will be the "default" superpower in the entire region. Bush has shattered the fragile balance of power between Sunnis and Shiites while eliminating Iran’s main adversaries in Afghanistan (Sunni-Taliban) and Iraq (Saddam-Ba’athist Party). Bush now seems to think that the only way he can challenge Tehran’s ascendancy is by launching a Lebanon-type assault on military and civilian infrastructure in Iran. If Iran is set back 20 years, Bush assumes, then our trusted-friend Israel will be the prevailing power in the Middle East. That, of course, was the plan from the get-go. To that end, Bush averred: "We’re taking steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot Air Defense Systems to reassure our friends and allies . . . And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region." All the pieces are being put in place for a much larger and more destructive conflict. It’s an ambitious plan, but it has no chance of succeeding. The United States is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq and its actions in Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine have only ensured that the US's days in the Middle East are quickly drawing to a close. As for Iraq, Bush’s speech provided few details of how the miniscule and incremental increase in troop-strength (only 17,000 to Baghdad over a four-month period) was expected to quell the raging violence that has gripped the capital since the last major operation in August. Operation "Forward Together" turned out to be a complete disaster, precipitating a sharp boost in attacks on US troops as well as an increase in sectarian violence. Bush has enlisted some support for his "escalation" plan by committing to the "clear-hold-build" strategy promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR has been pushing their "model for counterinsurgency" for three years, but have been largely ignored by the Bush administration. Despite Bush’s feeble defense of the policy, he has no intention of putting it into practice. He is merely pacifying other members of the political establishment who are demanding that their voices be heard. The reality of the present strategy is manifest in military operations currently underway in Baghdad. These operations are being conducted in a way that is reminiscent of Rumsfeld’s activities in Falluja two years ago. The attacks on alleged "insurgent strongholds" on Haifa Street, (which is just a few hundred yards from the Green Zone) show that the military has returned to the policy of using overwhelming force to subdue the resistance. In this case, the US pounded the area with helicopter gun-ships and F-16s, while ground troops went rampaging door to door. The civilian casualties in these scattershot operations invariably skyrocket and further alienate the local population. In one day alone, US forces killed an estimated 50 Iraqis in the predominantly Sunni "residential" area. Another catastrophic "hearts and minds" operation. Sunni leaders are now accusing the US military of carrying out ethnic cleansing operations at the request of the Shiite militias. Is that the plan, purging Baghdad of the Sunnis? It appears so. Certainly, the lynching of Saddam was intended to send a message to the Ba’athist-led resistance that there would be no more efforts at negotiations or compromise. The US is now pursuing Cheney’s "80-20" plan -- a strategy to throw their support behind the Shiites while eradicating the Sunnis (20 percent of the population). Bush hinted at this new approach in his speech when he said, "Our efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principle reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure the neighborhoods that have been cleared of terrorists and insurgents AND THERE WERE TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE TROOPS WE DID HAVE." "Too many restrictions"? (The respected British medical journal Lancet reported 650,000 casualties in the conflict so far with over 2 million Iraqi refugees. Is that "Too many restrictions"? ) Bush’s comments suggest that the "gloves are coming off" and we can expect a return to the scorched earth policy that was so savagely applied in Falluja and other parts of the Sunni Triangle. Bush also intimated that he would strike out at other "armed militias" in Iraq; an indication that US forces are planning an offensive against Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army. The Shiite cleric, al Sadr, is despised by the Washington Warlords and is described by the Pentagon as "the biggest threat to Iraq’s security." Even so, al-Sadr has operatives placed strategically throughout the al-Maliki government (and within the Green Zone) and attacking him now would only make the occupation more perilous. In fact, an attack on the Mehdi Army could create a situation where Shiite militias cut off vital supply lines from the south making occupation virtually untenable. Bush has decided to abandon all sense of caution and blunder ahead taking on all adversaries without concern for the consequences. It is a prescription for disaster. Bush’s "Victory Strategy": more force, but no political solution Bush's speech invoked none of the flashy slogans that he typically uses and which normally appear in headlines the next day. Nor did he make any attempt to elicit support for his planned "escalation" of troops. That idea has already been thoroughly rejected by the Iraq Study Group, the Congress, and the American people. Instead, he reiterated the same worn bromides (of "ideological" warfare, 9-11, and terrorism) that have long since lost their power to move public opinion. The Bush administration has run out of gas. They have no plan for "pacification," security, reconstruction, or regional stability. Their "one-size-fits-all" solution requires ever-increasing levels of violence for an intractable Iraqi Resistance and which is now fated to spread mayhem throughout the entire Middle East. Carl von Clausewitz said, "War is not a mere act of policy, but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." Bush and his fellow-neocons are incapable of thinking politically, so America’s decline in Iraq is likely to be precipitous. The crackdown in Baghdad and the anticipated bombing of Iran will have no significant affect on the war’s outcome. America has lost its ability to influence events positively or to arbitrarily assert its will. We’re now facing "death by a thousand cuts" and the steady erosion of US power. Brute force alone will not produce a political solution in Iraq. Those who think it will are bound to fail.

That's not even funny....:) I see Ron Paul might be up for it.

Exactly and the MSNBC poll here is even worse... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16552198/ It's 71% against more troops at this post.

That's from the Telegraph isn't it....yeah, I read this. I've heard about this happening loads of times to the 'average Joe' but it's only been picked up by our press because of his status. I wonder what happened to the cops? probably got a bonus or something.

The Real Agenda Of The Global Elite In Somalia The Real Agenda Of The Global Elite In Somalia Neocons are backing the same warlords that slaughtered US troops in 1993 Wednesday, January 10, 2007 This week has seen the latest example of the US power elite bombing a broken-backed country in the name of the global 'war on terror'. The phantom menace of 'Al Qaeda' has again provided a pretext for the further destruction and destabilization of struggling state, this time Somalia, in order that the Western elite power-mongers can move in and control its valuable resources. The Bush Administration is essentially asking us to expect to believe that it is bombing a country in an attempt to kill three terrorists– , the alleged mastermind behind the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 225 people, and accomplices Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Abu Talha al-Sudani. The Somali government has today claimed that four more airstrikes have been carried out, killing more innocent people. The US has denied this. Also today, a senior Somali politician said US troops were needed on the ground to fight a Muslim extremist threat. Monday's strike reportedly killed around 200 people, including Canadian and British citizens. Critics of the action have said it could misfire by creating strong Somali resentment and feeding Islamist militancy. Analysts fear that US interfering and backing of one Somali faction against another could ignite an Iraqi-style insurgency across a swath of East Africa. There is no doubt that this is a part of the escalation of the wider war of aggression planned and executed by the neoconservatives who published their Project For the New American Century before they came to power. "Before this, it was just tacit support for Ethiopia. Now the U.S. has fingerprints on the intervention and is going to be held more accountable," said Horn of Africa expert Ken Menkhaus. "This has the potential for a backlash both in Somalia and the region." The truth is that, once again, the terror myth is being promulgated as an excuse to unleash violence against a largely innocent Muslim population, and one that has struggled for a peaceful existence for decades. As prominent blogger Kurt Nimmo has stated: "In other words, it was a turkey shoot, and the targets were not necessarily “al-Qaeda” but rather members of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), Muslims who not long ago ruled Somalia under the Shariah, or Islamic law. CBS does not bother to mention the fact ICU was popular in Somalia, a Muslim nation." Last December, the popular ICU lost control of the country after a short lived form of peace. The UIC had controlled Mogadishu and other areas of the country after defeating several local warlords who held Somalia in the grip of terror since the collapse of central rule in 1991. The Islamists had succeeded in defeating the warlords primarily through rallying people to their side by creating law and order through the application of Shariah law, which Somalis universally practice. 15,000 Ethiopian troops, with U.S. backing, invaded in an illegal war of aggression and ousted the IUC leaders who fled to the southern-most tip of the country. Many Somalis in areas controlled by the UIC welcomed the security and order that the Islamists brought to the country. The Bush Administration is playing on reports that the Islamists are 'Taliban like' and is lumping them in with 'Al Qaeda' terrorists. But the UIC does not appear to be a monolithic organization and seems split between moderates who want peace and dialogue and more right wing Muslims who want to impose Muslim Sharia law. In any case neither have the means or the desire to commit an almighty Jihad against the West, they are simply concerned with creating some kind of law and order within Somalia. The US response has been to provide major funding to the warlord groupings, via the Ethiopian army, that are opposed to the UIC. Before bombing the hell out of villages on Monday, the Bush Administration has long been providing backing to ruthless killers intent on keeping Somalia in civil strife because it benefits each warlord's plundering rule to keep the nation carved up. These are the same marauding warlords who drove out American forces in 1993, killing and maiming 18 US troops in the streets then dragging their bodies around in celebration. Many of these warlords were part of the puppet regime transitional "government" that had been organized in Kenya in 2004. But the "government" was so devoid of internal support that it had to turn to Somalia's arch enemy, Ethiopia, to maintain control. So why are the US power elite funding sectarian warlords in Somalia and now bombing Islamist areas of the country? Because the control of Somalia via puppet government, just like in Iraq, is a key factor in the Neocon plan to "shrink the non-integrating gap" of the new world order, as Thomas Barnett's 'New Map' of the world has it. As with Iraq, the real agenda is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region. The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea. Click Image to enlarge Not surprising then that multiple US warships and Ticonderoga-class cruisers are now stalking the coastline off Somalia and routinely sending intelligence-gathering flights over the country. The location is also prime in order to be able to instantly mobilize forces for any conflict with Iran at the drop of a hat. The American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips also hold concession rights in Somalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, “corporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somalia’s most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified,” - i.e. kill the "Islamofascists" and install a weak and pandering government that could never control its own resources well enough to compete with the Western global elite. “Somalia is of geostrategic interest to the Bush administration, and the focus of operations and policy since 2001,” writes Larry Chin. “This focus is a continuation of long-term policies of both the Clinton administration and the George H.W. Bush administrations. Somalia’s resources have been eyed by Western powers since the days of the British Empire.” “A new US cleansing of Somalian ‘tyranny’ would open the door for these US oil companies to map and develop the possibly huge oil potential in Somalia,” notes F. William Engdahl. “Yemen and Somalia are two flanks of the same geological configuration, which holds large potential petroleum deposits, as well as being the flanks of the oil chokepoint from the Red Sea.” Of course the American public will simply be told that we're after 'Al Qaeda' because of 9/11, and they will buy it again. No matter that operatives involved in the African bombings at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were admittedly working for the CIA. Nah, that's a side issue, LOOK AMERICA, Al Zawahiri said Somalia is Islamofascist, so we gotta bomb the hell out of it and control it's oil - just get used to it.

Now, I actually think 24 is good for what it is, I mean....I quite like watching it....however I can see the amount of blatant psychological scaremongering and 'people preparation' within the show all the time and the new season looks to be taking it up a fair notch - it's a gradual and incremental process of tactics to further our acceptance of the globalist's FEAR - it's everywhere now though. If a news story can be linked to terrorism in ANY way it will. Even if it's just the use of the words 'middle-eastern' or the creepy suggestive headline banners on Fox News Channel, it'll be there, the FEAR angle well be included. Again, I quite like 24 but I hate the way it has a 'not so hidden' second audience - Your Psyche (or Psychie...however it's spelt) New 24 Season Showcases Mass Terror, Concentration Camps Propaganda Keeps Being Pushed by FOX Tuesday, January 9, 2007 The new season of 24, that is to air this coming weekend, is to prepare the American people for the idea of concentration camps, detention centers and the rounding up of people in times of crisis. The opener depicts an America besieged by mass terrorist attacks and public paranoia, with 11 cities, including New York, Atlanta, San Antonio and L.A., having been attacked in the space of a few weeks. Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTgI4r0DWGw&eurl= A Fox news broadcast pumps out on street corners and at bus stops from TV screens as the terrified public are urged to report anyone they consider suspicious. A brown skinned man is refused entry onto a bus as the people around him look at him as if he is some kind of space alien. Cut to the Oval Office were there is an argument going on between the National Security Advisor and the President's aides about the morality and constitutional implications of using concentration camps/detention centers in America. The National Security Advisor, who the President's aides are surprised to find is opposed to this, states "These places that you keep building, they are nothing more than concentration camps." Note how the Security Advisor states that camps are already built and keep being built. She goes on to state that a "revised plan" on behalf of the White House "justifies locking up every American who prays towards Mecca." As she continues to argue against locking up innocent Americans, the high ranking official played by Peter MacNicol (perhaps the head of Homeland Security, it is unclear from the clip) abruptly stops her and yells "security has its price." The aides, including the Attorney General then attempt to persuade the dubious President that in a "time of war" it is legal to suspend Habeas Corpus. The second clip features a private conversation between the Security Advisor and MacNicol's character in which he tells her that he has "second guessed" the President by not rescinding an earlier secret order for the National Guard to prepare to set up detention facilities at sports arenas in L.A., Detroit and Philadelphia. Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Uk15f90Xc&eurl= The Security Advisor questions "what happens when innocent people get caught up in this net?" To which MacNicol's character states "Like I said before, security has its price, just get used to it." Although 24 has routinely depicted scenes of detainee torture, this latest plot-line is the first time that it has broached the issue of the detention of American citizens in a time of crisis. At a time when legislation such as The Military Commissions Act is setting the precedent for the detention of American citizens, 24 serves as the perfect dose of fear-mongering propaganda to get the people to accept such attacks upon the fabric of freedom and to "just get used to it". Thus when real attacks are carried out some will not be alarmed to see detention camps being used because they have already witnessed the scenario played out before their very eyes. Laura Ingraham has previously stated that the average American's love of the show is a referendum for such tough tactics against anyone considered to be with "Al Qaeda" whether they be American citizens or not. Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Y0MN4SXmA&eurl= Following the news first given wide attention by this website, that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct the very detention and processing facilities referred to in this episode of 24, the Alternet website put together an alarming report that collated all the latest information on plans to initiate internment of political subversives and Muslims after the next major terror attack in the U.S. Yesterday we reported one such detention camp in Taylor Texas that currently holds hundreds of rebuffed asylum seekers who legally entered the country, half of which are children swept up in midnight raids. These things are all over the country and are prime locations for the enforced transfer of American citizens during a time of national emergency. Furthermore, one of the last acts of Congress before Christmas was to send President Bush a bill that establishes a $38 million program of National Park Service grants to preserve Japanese POW internment camps in Hawaii, California, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho.

Well, you should. :p

Nicole Caucescau

Another video that really shouldn't have happened.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-233844812484249985 WARNING: The 27-second video, posted on Google, appears to show Saddam's body on a gurney, covered with a bloodied white shroud that is removed so the person videotaping — possibly with a cell phone camera — has a clear shot at his head and neck. A large and gaping wound is visible on the neck.

Note when I posted this, it wasn't even on Sky News or BBC News until many hours afterwards. A U.S. Air Force gunship has conducted a strike against suspected members of al Qaeda in Somalia.. The AC-130 gunship is capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, and sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike, but there is as yet, no confirmation of the identities. The gunship flew from its base in Dijibouti down to the southern tip of Somalia, Martin reports, where the al Qaeda operatives had fled after being chased out of the capital of Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops backed by the United States.

To save us creating lots of threads about things happening in Iraq.

It's Jaff.