GazeboflossUK

Yep. We are always hearing this from our countries, that don't want war and that they want diplomacy.....yet they alway choose war.....there's more money made for the private mega companies who are taking all the money away from us I guess.

Well, it's already underway and it's all been signed up to by all three countries. Where you asked if you wanted it? No.....and neither was anybody else.

Hey, if certain people have their way and if nobody does anything about it that big huge green North America will become the US, the North American Union.

Don't worry, he aint going to do anyhing. I tell you something.....the whole ambiguity that arises around the subject of what he actually thinks is very frustrating, there's no clear picture and the media sure don't paint it with clarity either. And also... So who is this Hidden Imam? He was a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who, at the age of five, disappeared down a well around AD940. He will only return after a period of utter chaos and bloodshed, whereupon peace, justice and Islam will reign worldwide. ^^^ Sounds alot like the hardcore fake christians (they don't know that they are fake though) that love all the police state and war efforts being made by the US and the west because they believe that when everything gets bad, down to rock bottom hell hole levels that 'Armageddon' means the return of chirst. And this a serious point (as all my points are, of course but...) I think both sides need to wise up.

Firstly, it's not the entire government... and....yes I would want those involved to go to jail. But that's a long way off. Firstly we just need to show that we are being tricked and lied to about so many things......and 9/11 is a prime example, which was the modern day reichstag fire or pearl harbour event but on a more devious and spectaular level. And stop it with your broken record style lines, yes they are based on reality or common sense! I wouldn't even consider them if they weren't. You don't think they are but it that really dosen't mean anything does it. And stop just trying to provoke pointless arguing. I thought you should be past that by now. 9/11 Mysteries - Part 1 - Controlled Demolition

ahh, god, yeah....ok. Why are you bothing to post things like that? It's like a 15 year old. Stop taking the debate backwards with such loose slanging attempts.

No I wouldn't...what the fuck are you on about. Idiot.

WTC Bombshell: Internal EPA Papers Fuel Christie Critics WTC Bombshell: Internal EPA Papers Fuel Christie Critics SUSAN EDELMAN and DAN MANGAN / NY Post, September 22 2006 Christie Todd Whitman, while head of the federal EPA, "conspired" to falsely reassure the public that the air around Ground Zero was safe to breath, according to critics and bombshell new documents. In 2003, Whitman's then-spokeswoman, Tina Kreisher, was asked by an Environmental Protection Agency internal investigator "whether there was a conscious effort to reassure the public [in the fall of 2001]. "Ms. Kreisher said there was such an effort. This emphasis 'came from the administrator [Whitman] and the White House,' " according to newly released quotes from EPA papers. Hugh Kaufman, an EPA senior policy analyst, told The Post yesterday, that Kreisher "blew the whistle not just on the White House, but on Whitman as well," Kreisher's comment was included in the investigator's notes made during the interview with her. But her quote was not released in the EPA inspector general's final report in 2003, which blamed the White House - not Whitman - for telling the EPA to publicly play up reassuring information and downplay concerns about air around Ground Zero. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan) blasted Whitman over the new disclosure. "She conspired [with the White House] to convince people to go into an unsafe environment . . . For that, she ought to be prosecuted," Nadler said. "People are dead because of her." Whitman's current spokeswoman responded by sending The Post a statement that her boss had recently released on the controversy over air quality. "We agreed then, and I reiterate now, that the air on the site was not clean," Whitman said. "We were emphatic that workers needed to wear respirators, a message that I repeated frequently. But I did not have the jurisdiction to force workers to wear them." Meanwhile, Whitman's newly released financial-disclosure forms show that she said seven months before 9/11 that she would not get involved in any issue related to the finances of the Port Authority - which owns the WTC site - because she or her family owned PA bonds. Its finances could be impacted by lawsuits growing of the cleanup. "I understand the following interests that belong to me, my spouse or my children present a conflict of interest," Whitman wrote at the time. She then listed various investments, including the bistate agency. But Whitman was involved at Ground Zero despite that recusal, although she or her family also owned shares of Citigroup, whose insurance-company subsidiary, The Travelers, paid out hundred of millions of dollars in claims to downtown residents displaced by the attacks. Critics said the documents indicate Whitman encouraged people to move back to near Ground Zero and work on the cleanup despite a health threat, which could have bolstered the bottom line of both the PA and Travelers. That's because both the PA and Travelers now can argue in civil suits that they believed there was little or no danger from the air around the Trade Center based on statements made by the EPA. David Worby, who represents 8,000 workers at and around Ground Zero, said, "The fact that the head of the EPA had a financial conflict defies imagination." Whitman's camp pointed out that she previously had been cleared by the EPA's inspector general on conflict-of-interest accusations.

Yes, I think diplomacy is the only answer.......however, from Irans point of view there is no real need to discuss the nuclear issue as they are stating that they are not developing a nuclear weapon (weapons inspectors conclude this too). It's a tough situation alright.....with the media and government speeches all demonising Iran and blowing quotes out of context, I feel we are doomed to a horrific event/war. 'The political phrase of this decade when it is over will no doubt be 'imperial overstretch'! The US has two possible futures; 1) controling and subdugating the entire globe through hegemonic control (soft control like political influence, economic stranglehold etc..) and through military suppression when necesssary or 2) Complete overt empire, those who support the US will retain their apparent independence, those who dont will be overtly controlled on mass' A internet contact was was discussing this with me online..... 'The war criminals controlling the US, Britain and Israel are blind to human suffering, one could even say, looking at the evidence, that they thrive on it. To give you a clue as to US military thinking, this from the PNAC document: "... the art of warfare ... will be vastly different than it is today ... “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

Show me all the times that Hilter said he didn't want war then..

Well, I do actually have other sources if you look.......but most of the time I post Pauls Watson's articles as often they actually are based on other reports or documents which he provides links to and such. That's why I post them as they are well sourced. (and not becuase of the other reasons that people on here have speculated in the past). And the BBC? They wouldn't ever even begin to pick up on decent stories. Once in a blue moon do they have a reporter who does something worthwhile. It's the same with Sky News here in the UK - terrible reporting. Just today when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was talking Live at the UN about his desire not to have nuclear weapons and that he wasn't anti-jewish the BBC were running a story about something pointless and Sky News actually cut away after 3 minutes and aired an awful, lengthy golf interview. I was quite annoyed because it's so they can create a report and cherry pick the parts they want without letting most people view his whole speech.

Bush Propaganda Architect Rove Promises October Surprise Will PR coup be another Bin Laden campaign endorsement or something far deadlier? Paul Joseph Watson | September 21 2006 Bush administration PR guru and master political strategist Karl Rove has "promised" an October surprise that will help the Republicans to win both congressional houses in November. Will this curveball be another helpful Bush campaign endorsement on behalf of Osama Bin Laden or something far worse? Newsmax columnist Ronald Kessler cites Republican insiders as the source of the leak that Rove intends on pulling a rabbit out of the hat to guarantee another Republican sweep this November. "Rove is not saying what the October surprise will be, writes Kesser, " asked if he would elaborate and give his thinking about the coming elections, Rove told NewsMax that his take largely parallels what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said in a Sept. 5 NewsMax story." Days before the 2004 presidential election, an Osama Bin Laden videotape gave Bush the six point surge he needed to overtake John Kerry and snatch the White House. According to a book written by Bill Sammon, Senior White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Bush attributed his 2004 victory over John Kerry in part to a Osama bin Laden videotape released on the eve of the election. “I thought it was going to help,” Bush decided. “I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn’t want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush.” Bush's rival John Kerry blamed the Bin Laden tape for his defeat. Former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite went public to call the tape a set up orchestrated by Karl Rove. Will Rove's promised pre-election surprise be another Bin Laden "don't vote for the Republicans" scam or should we prepare for the "inevitable" terror attack that will provide the false flag provocation to kick-start air strikes on Iran? Is Rove's October surprise the political assassination, dirty bomb, biological release or terror attack forecast in a 2005 Republican memo, touted to "reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush," and "restore his image as a leader of the American people." Will the Neo-Fascists again overplay their hand in a desperate lunge to rescue their power monopoly or is Rove's plan infinitely more sophisticated?

Don't worry you little self....it'll be ALOT sooner.

Senior intel official: Pentagon moves to second-stage planning for Iran strike option Larisa Alexandrovna / Raw Story | September 21 2006 The Pentagon's top brass has moved into second-stage contingency planning for a potential military strike on Iran, one senior intelligence official familiar with the plans tells RAW STORY. The official, who is close to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officials of each branch of the US military, says the Chiefs have started what is called "branches and sequels" contingency planning. "The JCS has accepted the inevitable," the intelligence official said, "and is engaged in serious contingency planning to deal with the worst case scenarios that the intelligence community has been painting." A second military official, although unfamiliar with these latest scenarios, said there is a difference between contingency planning -- which he described as "what if, then what" planning -- and "branches and sequels," which takes place after an initial plan has been decided upon. Adding to the concern of both military and intelligence officials alike is the nuclear option, the possibility of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons targeting alleged WMD facilities in Iran. An April New Yorker report by Sy Hersh alleged that the nuclear option was on the table, and that some officers of the Joint Chiefs had threatened resignation. "The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning," Hersh wrote. "Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran�without success, the former intelligence official said." The senior intelligence official who spoke to RAW STORY, along with several military intelligence sources, confirmed that the nuclear option remains on the table. In addition, the senior official added that the Joint Chiefs have "come around on to the administration's thinking." "The Joint Chiefs have no longer imposed roadblocks on a possible bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear production facilities," the intelligence official said. "In the past, only the Air Force had endorsed the contingency, saying that it could carry out the mission of destroying, or at least significantly delaying, Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon." Preparation for such a strike would require contingency plans for securing oil transport lines and dealing with possible riots, as well as assessment of issues that arose during the Iran-Iraq war. "Bahrain will be a battleground as it is majority Shi'a and has had Shi'a riots stimulated by Iran in the past," the official said. "The US Fifth Fleet is also based there. A system for [protection of] oil transport in the Gulf will have to be devised by the US Navy to protect against attacks." The Pentagon did not immediately respond to repeated emails requesting comment. Deployment orders With allegations of a plan in place and contingency scenarios in play, several military and intelligence experts see this as proof of a secret White House order to proceed with military action. Last week, a military intelligence official described to this reporter the movement of Naval submarines and a deployment order sent out to Naval assets of strategic import, such as minesweepers, that could indicate contingency planning is already under way to secure oil transport routes and supplies. On Sunday, Time Magazine confirmed much of what the military intelligence source had described. "The first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters," Time's Michael Duffy wrote. "The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real." Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner also expressed concern about the deployment orders, but cautioned that these particular ships are slow-moving and would take "a month or so" to arrive in position. "Minecountermeasures, the four ships mentioned, are generally not self-deploying," Gardiner said Wednesday. "When previously sent to the Gulf, they were transported on the decks of heavy lift ships. The earliest they would arrive would be around the first of November." Although some claim the Defense Department has denied the deployment order, no official denial has been made. The Pentagon does not comment on operational plans, not even to issue a denial. Lawmakers in the dark? Attempts to contact members of the Senate Armed Services Committee provided little help in confirming allegations of the deployment order made to this reporter and Time. Senate offices that were available for comment would not do so on the record. From all appearances, however, it would seem that at least some members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have not been briefed on deployment orders or on any strike plans, even contingency plans. The Senate Intelligence Committee is attempting to get a grasp on what is and has been going on. A source close to the Committee, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the information, explained that a series of briefings will be going on this week and into next. The Senate Intelligence Committee has "embarked on a much more aggressive review of what the intelligence community knows and is doing regarding Iran," the source said. "In fact [the Committee has] a number of Iran related briefings this week and next before the senators leave town," the source added. They "will cover the full spectrum including various aspects of their nuclear program and all U.S. collection efforts."

I heard about this yesterday on the radio. North American Union baby......this isn't good. Another step in the wrong direction..

Ok. Ok. Right. Your wrong :( Look below, he called me a 'nut'.....idiot.

Yep I agree.....(and this CIA report wasn't meant to be spread about but it was leaked and then mainstream. But do we hear about that anymore?) There's apparently US military operations happening on the ground in Iran already.

Anti-terror fish guard San Francisco's water Deutsche Presse Agentur | September 6 2006 San Francisco- San Francisco authorities have drafted 12 bluegill fish to help protect the city's water supply from terror threats, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday. The fish live in a tank at a water treatment plant where a computer monitoring system detects if they are upset by any foreign substances in the water. The 110,000 dollar system is able to track how the fish flex their gills to clear unwelcome particles from their breathing passages. It compares the fish behaviour with their standard reactions. If the computer senses any abnormal movements "the system immediately triggers water samples to be taken, and the staff are alerted by pager and e-mail," said Tony Winnicker, Public Utilities Commission spokesman. Most water treatment facilities systems already use chemical treatments to protect water quality against biological agents such as bacteria, but the fish system is best able to detect non-biological threats such as pesticides, mercury, cyanide, heavy metals, fuel spills and phosphates, the report said. "The Army tested this system against 27 toxicants, and it spotted them all," said Bill Lawler, co-founder of Intelligent Automation, the company that invented the system.

Of course he's not....lol Most of europe want's to avoid the issue of Iran? You really have been sucked in by the sick military industrial complex. We don't want to attack Iran becuase they pose no threat. The CIA's own report says so. This is all because the war criminals need to keep things going. Iraq is messed up, Afghanistan is screwed and now they are needing to continue the crazy, insane 'ponzi scheme' that they have going by having a go at Iran. Most of the world does not want this war and anyone who wants it is a fool.

Ok, back on topic......sorry.

Well, it kinda is if you read their documents and see the way the police are beginning to treat people.. Obviously when someone says Nazi Germany is brings up sorts of images but on a serious note....they are pushing for a society which mirrors many of the same properties, in terms of curbing the peoples rights and using major propaganda tactics to gain support for terrible ideas.

Well....that's the thing.....the person actually giving the vaccine has no clue but putting mercury in vaccines at a Laboratory level is worrying. Then trying to force kids to have them.

True, your schools are going down the pan. And with the huge growth of retardation (bad vaccines) who is going to fight against the global suppression in the future? Not these kids, that's for sure.

Bush is by far worse in terms of money wasted, freedoms taken, lies told........so yes Bush is a far worse president. However GW Bush is just a puppet. It's his administration who are the "brains" bhind his regime. Clinton was actually a certified genius but still he was allow the US to infiltrate and stage terror.