Blair and MI5.

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:55 pm

anti, everyone of the armed forces, including the police have to swear that oath of filth. Anyone with the smallest iota of intelligence knows the 'democracy' scam for what it is. The problem is, most mr and mrs jones' are too busy trying to grind out a living 10 hours a day. Too knackered to think, too ground down by the lousy stinking sytem. Thats why it all works so well unfortunately. Of course theres always a few who slip through the net, but with such grand prizes at stake, its no holds barred in keeping the truth from the people. You know that, I know that, and a guesstimate is 99.5 of the population dont know that. Just look into the eyes of the general masses of the UK population, there's nothing there, almost like they are a living dead. Totally blissfully accepting their lot while 'hoping' to hit the lottery. Sounds like the 'irish connection' are clued up not swearing the 'oath of filth'.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just look into the eyes of the general masses of the UK population, there's nothing there, almost like they are a living dead. Totally blissfully accepting their lot while 'hoping' to hit the lottery<hr></blockquote> Michael, So bloody true. One of the "superfluous" comments I put into one of the Wandsworth affidavits was how the populace remind me of nothing so much as the downtrodden masses of the former Soviet Bloc. The rest of the world gets its impressions from the screen: they just cannot see it. It's the same with the USA. When we get pictures of the real America, such as Katrina, everybody says the same thing. "Aren't they FAT?" We're slaves to that bloody screen

by **eric144** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:16 pm

"the downtrodden masses of the former Soviet Bloc" Yes, possibly worse now that people are under the thumb at work which the Soviets weren't. I used to have a reasonable job and a car, I never noticed the poverty till I had to get the bus and walk. It works because alcohol, drugs and chinese electronics are cheap. There's also the black market. At the same time, many people (possibly the majority) are doing fine with two incomes. Housing has improved dramatically in the last thirty years round here. Thatcherism worked by splitting off those at the bottom

by **Homeless Halo** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:35 pm

Ah, the joys of Thatcherism, just Reganomics for the societally sophisticated. If you'd like to see Reganomics long term effects on a failing industrial state, come and stay a few days. We have "mutant crack dogs" (TV term)that move in "large packs" through the abandoned zones that "used" to outlie our industrial area. Apparently the dogs eat dead crack heads in the shanty towns and go mad with their own addiction until they eventually OD and die. I'd never heard of such a thing until I moved here. They're saying we might eventually have to sort of, well, cull them off. Put a bounty on them. A mile from there, they just built a new baseball Stadium, pretty lights, big statues, fun and games, bread and circuses... Everyone here is going to die eventually. If they ever go the hard conditioning, martial law, concentration camps, conspiracy theorist's worse case scenario, we're going to get hit hard. I think we should arm the homeless. We should begin learning from them how to live outside. I don't think our masters have intention of letting us sleep next to the fire once hunting season is over. god help the world. especially those nice Canadians. They won't deserve what we'll probably eventually do to them. It won't be much better for the rest of you either. The outlook seems to be getting more desperate, on both "sides". Everyday. Well, it is a beautiful day. Cheers. -SHCR

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:57 pm

Slightly OT. But things CAN change vey quickly. Just five months ago Bush was a juggernaught. He had political capital to spend, and he intended to spend it. People were in despair. Kerry talked about running again. There was no hope. Today, even with a worst case scenario of no indictments, that has all changed. Bush's popularity will not return. The general public know nothing of this treason, but thet have turned their backs anyway. How can these people ever work together again?

by **antiaristo** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Labour fury as Blair fails to guarantee Trident vote By Toby Helm Chief Political Correspondent (Filed: 20/10/2005) Labour MPs reacted furiously yesterday after Tony Blair refused to guarantee them a vote on whether to replace Trident with a new generation of nuclear weapons at a cost to taxpayers of up to £20 billion. Mr Blair made clear during Prime Minister's Questions that he was in favour of updating Trident and told MPs that a decision would probably be needed in the current Parliament. Tony Blair: 'No decisions on replacing Trident have been taken' But he caused dismay on the Labour back benches by indicating that the decision would be taken over the heads of MPs. Last night a group of anti-nuclear Labour MPs was pushing for the parliamentary party to stage its own emergency vote on Trident at a meeting later this month in a move that could split the party. Asked by Labour's Paul Flynn if there would be a "debate and a vote" in the Commons before any decision was taken, Mr Blair said he was "sure there will be a debate... and I have no doubt at all that there will be a great deal of discussion on this issue as the months and years unfold". But he dodged the issue of a vote. The Prime Minister stressed that he believed strongly in an updated, independent nuclear deterrent. "I also have to say to him [Mr Flynn], however, that although I don't pretend the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism, nonetheless I do believe it is an important part of our defence." He added: "No decisions on replacing Trident have yet been taken but these are likely to be necessary in the current parliament. It is too early to rule in or rule out any particular option. And as we set out in our manifesto we are committed to retaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent." Last night Mr Flynn said he was "very dissatisfied" that Mr Blair had ducked his inquiry about a vote. He expected opposition to any move to order an updated weapons system to come from all sides of the House of Commons and from senior officers in the Armed Forces. "There are people in the military who think this is a very bad decision. Trident missiles didn't stop Galtieri invading the Falklands. We don't need to spend £20 billion on a useless status symbol. ''These missiles are lurking in deep waters but the weapons aren't targeted at anybody. ''They just travel around the world and go through the motions. The least that should happen is that we should have a debate and a vote in the Commons." Peter Kilfoyle, a former Labour defence minister, said spending such a huge sum would take money away from the hard-pressed Armed Forces, which were already overstretched because of commitments in Iraq, and reduce the money available for health and education. Although Trident's life could be extended for another 20 years, a decision is required soon because a long period is needed to develop and test new systems. <hr></blockquote> The Telegraph (URL too long) Put this together with the quote upthread such a law could stop the government acting quickly and rob it of the crucial element of surprise. although I don't pretend the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism, nonetheless I do believe it is an important part of our defence And Parliament is not involved. Only Her Majesty and her lawyer.

Blair and MI5.

swearing

Re: swearing

Re: swearing

god save the queen

Re: god save the queen

Update on the Deterrent

Who is online