“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[The Legendary Shark]

I remember now why i don't venture in here!

Is it because you can't handle the truth?     

[Emp]

More due to the negative waves,,,,,always with the negative waves.......woof woof 

[Peter Wolf]

Heres the good bit where i admit that i have fucked up and that i may be delusional as i have backtracked and i cant find where i listed the positives where in actual fact i had only named a few positives over two or 3 comments some way back and then 5 positives in a reply to @MIK.I could have sworn that i had listed them earlier than that......I dont mind admitting i am wrong as its self evident but it was a shock backtracking to find something that i imagined was there - the awful truth.

What a complete utter moron.

Apologies.

[The Legendary Shark]

[Emp]

a slightly lighter note.......mind you it could be a cunning plan my the lizard people!

[The Legendary Shark]

"Shcool" is the noise the lizard-people make as they consume our children.

[Peter Wolf]

AFRICOM :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h0chhgV9L5MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command+africom&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk

VS

The African Union :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8XEfNfc4EhIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union+african+union&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk

The US is trying to ease its way into Africa through Obama to set up a US military jurisdiction and militarisation over Africa - AFRICOM that was set up by Donald Rumsfeld under GW Bush who was backed by Halliburton,Bechtel,The Carlyle Group,Dynecorp under the pretext of fighting terrorism and Humanitarianism.The vast majority of African nations have rejected Africom but others have signed into AFRICOM like Ethiopia as they received/were bribed with funding from AFRICOM which is easy with corrupt despots and warlords etc.AFRICOM has surrounded Africa with military bases and sections of the military dedicated to AFRICOM who want to assist Africa in a military capacity.Also AFRICOM wants to drive out China from Africa.

The US wanted to take Libya but it has potentially cost them the rest of Africa and the almost certain failure of AFRICOM.The situation in the Ivory coast hasnt helped either.THe US military has merged with NATO military forces as it is overstretched.

The Libyan conflict has worked against AFRICOMs presence in Africa and plans for it and .AFRICOMs mission statement under "Theater Security Objectives" clearly states :

"Defeat the Al-Qaeda terrorist organizations and
its associated networks."

Yet in Libya the US is funding and logistically supporting ALQuaeda members amongst Libyan rebel forces.Gadaffi had previously informed the US that ALQuaeda were active in Libya but these warnings were ignored/not acted upon.

AFRICOM also state the following under their heading of "US Africa Command Mission" as a mission statement:

U.S. Africa Command Mission
United States Africa Command, in concert with
other U.S. government agencies and international
partners, conducts sustained security engagement
through military-to-military programs, militarysponsored
activities, and other military operations
as directed to promote *a stable and secure African
environment in support of U.S. foreign policy*."

So what this means is that if Africa signs up to AFRICOM then they support or will in time support US foreign policy so if US foreign policy decides that there is a problem within Africa [after signing up to AFRICOM]that requires a US military presence for reasons of terrorism or whatever else then they wont have a say in it themselves as US foreign policy isnt set out by Africans so Africa could very easily become a victim of US foreign policy.If African nations sign up to AFRICOM then the US will set up a permanent military base in its country.Obviously Africa is a huge potential marketplace for the arms trade etc or "We will supply you military equipment in return for your resources".Africas political/military leadership have rejected having an AFRICOM headquarters on African soil.

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]



Resist AFRICOM:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1552/t/5734/content.jsp?content_KEY=3855

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]

Dude, don't freak out, but I think 'they' are on to you and are trying to censor you.

Also, as my Daddy used to day, 'GET UP 'EM STAIRS AND GO TO BED!'

[Matt Timson]

Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.

Now go and fix your face.

Peter wins the thread!

[Emperor]

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]

Dude, don't freak out, but I think 'they' are on to you and are trying to censor you.

Or it is the strikethrough markup - this button: . You can turn it on or off, or just remove the [ s ] markup. However, to err on the side of caution, I'd go with pops1983 option

[JOE SOAP]

All you fucks are redacted.

[Peter Wolf]

Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.

Now go and fix your face.

Peter wins the thread!

As well as losing the thread by denying that i hadnt done something when i thought that i had.Or something like that but i am a bit confused about it all.

I will post one more comment about something else then i am opting out of this thread for a bit as its getting to be a bit much.

[JOE SOAP]

i am opting out of this thread for a bit as its getting to be a bit much.

Understatement of the year.

[Peter Wolf]

9/11 Road Trip:

The BBC are airing a documentary on 9/11 in September to debunk 9/11 conspiracies featuring Charlie Veitch[the love police] as the presenter to discover the truth about 9/11.Some of you may have heard of Charlie Veitch while others may not have.I have heard of him and i have to say that i never liked him as i think he is a bit of a Tit with his stupid shouting through a megaphone and claiming that what he was saying was biting and scathing satire when it was student level juvenile rubbish of no use to anyone like an idiot.

Charlie Veitch is well known in the truth movement and he was recently arrested and detained for publicising that he was going to disrupt the recent royal wedding so he was arrested before the event and then complained about it as well as his girlfriend whining about it on alternative media websites which was a bit daft because its obvious that if he had kept his mouth shut then he wouldnt have been arrested and would have been able to protest.Charlie actively seeks publicity and always has done so it makes me wonder if Truth and protesting was just a vehicle for publicity in the first place.

Anyway Charlie being an enthusiastic "Truther" was hired by the BBC to present this forthcoming documentary airing in September to commemorate 9/11 and the BBC commissioned the documentary with a view to debunking 9/11 conspiracies as its very very very very very unlikely that the BBC would air a 9/11 documentary that was supportive of 9/11 conspiracies so it seems unlikely that Charlie was going to go with the 9/11 conspiracies on camera as the documentary wouldnt have been shown on TV and Charlie wouldnt have been paid so it seems that despite Charlie being shown evidence that was utterly compelling while in New York as per the official version of events he must have signed up knowing what the remit of the documentary was or he wouldnt have signed up or been hired if he was against it so it was all a foregone conclusion while Charlie was/is claiming to be objective about it all.

Further to that he cant have been open minded about it all as if compelling evidence was presented during filming that supported the official version of events then it would be undeniable if you are objective about it all but Charlie talks of being a member of the 9/11 truth movement and then Charlie describes it as being like a member of a cult.If you had your mind changed by being shown compelling evidence that supported the official version of events which is fair enough then there wouldnt be any reason to describe the 9/11 truth movement as being a cult afterwards because surely up to the point of being shown the compelling evidence he would have had no problem with being a "truther" as it was up until that point something that was completely legitimate ??

I dont like him but he can think and say what he likes and no one is saying that he cant but its tempting to think that the authorities had words with him while he was detained as he had been under surveillance for some time.

Its going to cause a shitstorm in the truth movement [its already started] and Charlie wont be taken seriously by the truth movement anymore so he will probably become a TV presenter instead but he wont be able to complain about being called a sellout and a shill.

What evidence was he shown that was so utterly compelling that isnt already freely available that he wont discuss ?

[JOE SOAP]

Its going to cause a shitstorm in the truth movement [its already started] and Charlie wont be taken seriously by the truth movement anymore so he will probably become a TV presenter instead but he wont be able to complain about being called a sellout and a shill.

If there's one thing that's 'true' it's that the 'truth movement' can't agree on anything, the squabbling will continue and no one will pay any attention, so nothing new.