Cookie Policy: This web site uses cookies. By using this site you agree to our cookie policy.
Disclaimer: By posting on this web site it is accepted that you have agreed to the T&C. This is an information forum, and it is just that information, all views are of the individual poster and not that of the site owner. Please DO NOT publish copyrighted material without the owners permission. If you copy news or articles include a link back to the original site. Threads/Posts may be deleted on request. No other links without permission. BEFORE POSTING A QUESTION: Your question has probably been asked before, so please use the SEARCH FUNCTION, as we grow tired of answering the same question again and again. |
Win2Win Racing Club Member
Tony Bliar lost a very dear friend last week called Peter Mason (I believe) who lived in Australia. He sent his condolences and apologies for not being able to attend the funeral because he is due to appear before Lord Chilcot on Friday and needed time to prepare his replies.
How ******* long does it take to tell the truth?????
tl;dr specialist
I don't know when the funeral is but it's nigh on impossible to get to Australia in under 24 hours so it may not be so much preparing his answers as being in the right place when he is due before the inquiry and in a fit state of mind rather than jet-lagged.
Forum Member
Me thinks he'll be taking the truth to his grave & I'm sure Dr David Kelly would vouch for that:Originally Posted by tovarich
David Kelly Post Mortem to be Kept Secret for 70 Years
Doctors accuse Lord Hutton of concealing vital information
By Miles Goslett
January 25, 2010 "Daily Mail" -- Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.
In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence.
The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.
It is also bound to revive claims of an establishment cover-up and fresh questions about the verdict that Dr Kelly killed himself.
Tonight, Dr Michael Powers QC, a doctor campaigning to overturn the Hutton findings, said: ‘What is it about David Kelly’s death which is so secret as to justify these reports being kept out of the public domain for 70 years?’
Campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has also questioned the verdict that Dr Kelly committed suicide, said: ‘It is astonishing this is the first we’ve known about this decision by Lord Hutton and even more astonishing he should have seen fit to hide this material away.’
The body of former United Nations weapons inspector Dr Kelly was found in July 2003 in woods close to his Oxfordshire home, shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning the Government’s claims that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, which could be deployed within 45 minutes.
Lord Hutton’s 2004 report, commissioned by Mr Blair, concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.
It was dismissed by many experts as a whitewash for clearing the Government of any culpability, despite evidence that it had leaked Dr Kelly’s name in an attempt to smear him.
Only now has it emerged that a year after his inquiry was completed, Lord Hutton took unprecedented action to ensure that the vital evidence remains a state secret for so long.
A letter, leaked to The Mail on Sunday, revealed that a 30-year ban was placed on ‘records provided [which were] not produced in evidence’. This is thought to refer to witness statements given to the inquiry which were not disclosed at the time.
In addition, it has now been established that Lord Hutton ordered all medical reports – including the post-mortem findings by pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt and photographs of Dr Kelly’s body – to remain classified information for 70 years.
The normal rules on post-mortems allow close relatives and ‘properly interested persons’ to apply to see a copy of the report and to ‘inspect’ other documents.
Lord Hutton’s measure has overridden these rules, so the files will not be opened until all such people are likely to be dead.
Last night, the Ministry of Justice was unable to explain the legal basis for Lord Hutton’s order.
The restrictions came to light in a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council to a group of doctors who are challenging the Hutton verdict.
Last year, a group of doctors, including Dr Powers, compiled a medical dossier as part of their legal challenge to the Hutton verdict.
They argue that Hutton’s conclusion that Dr Kelly killed himself by severing the ulnar artery in his left wrist after taking an overdose of prescription painkillers is untenable because the artery is small and difficult to access, and severing it could not have caused death.
In their 12-page opinion, they concluded: ‘The bleeding from Dr Kelly’s ulnar artery is highly unlikely to have been so voluminous and rapid that it was the cause of death. We advise the instructing solicitors to obtain the autopsy reports so that the concerns of a group of properly interested medical specialists can be answered.’
Tonight, Dr Powers, a former assistant coroner, added: ‘Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton’s inquiry. If these secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that could be so sensitive?’
The letter disclosing the 70-year restriction was written by Nick Graham, assistant head of legal and democratic services at Oxfordshire Council.
It states: ‘Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years.’
Nicholas Gardiner, the Chief Coroner for Oxfordshire, confirmed that he had seen the letter.
Speaking to The Mail on Sunday today, he said: ‘I know that Lord Hutton made that recommendation. Someone told me at the time. Anybody concerned will be dead by then, and that is quite clearly Lord Hutton’s intention.’
Asked what was in the records that made it necessary for them to be embargoed, Mr Gardiner said: ‘They’re Lord Hutton’s records not mine. You’d have to ask him.’
He added that in his opinion Lord Hutton had embargoed the records to protect Dr Kelly’s children.
The inquest into Dr Kelly’s death was suspended before it could begin by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer. He used the Coroners Act to designate the Hutton Inquiry as ‘fulfilling the function of an inquest’.
News that the records will be kept secret comes just days before Mr Blair gives evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on Friday.
To date, Dr Kelly’s name has scarcely been mentioned at the inquiry. One source who held a private meeting with Sir John Chilcot before the proceedings began said that Sir John had admitted he ‘did not want to touch the Kelly issue’ .
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: ‘Any decision made by Lord Hutton at the time of his inquiry was entirely a matter for him.’
A spokesman for Thames Valley Police said yesterday that it would not be possible to search their records during the weekend.
The Mail on Sunday was unable to contact Lord Hutton.
Forum Member
A Bounty For Blair’s Arrest
Posted January 25, 2010
Today I am launching a new fund – http//www.arrestblair.org – to reward people who attempt to arrest the former prime minister
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 26th January 2010
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won’t address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg Tribunal called “the supreme international crime”(1): the crime of aggression.
But there’s a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November, “Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it’s the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don’t want the answer.”(2)
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had “no sound mandate in international law”(3). Last month the former law lord, Lord Steyn, said that “in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal.”(4) In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.”(5)
Under the UN Charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged(6). The parties to a dispute must first “seek a solution by negotiation” (Article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN Security Council only “if an armed attack occurs against [them]” (Article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq’s attempts to negotiate(7). At one point the US State Department even announced that it would “go into thwart mode” to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection(8). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that “a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers’ advice, none currently exists.”(9) In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, told the prime minister that there were only “three possible legal bases” for launching a war: “self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [Security Council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.”(10) Bush and Blair later failed to obtain Security Council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal advisor to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office had “consistently” advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that “an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression”(11). Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot Inquiry today (Tuesday). Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg Principles as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties”(12). They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair’s government in 2001(13), provides for the Court to “exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression”, once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted(14).
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don’t yet exist. The governments which ratified the Rome Statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still hasn’t been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws(15), though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the International Criminal Court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government which had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, “moved on” from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush’s government, at the Hay festival in 2008(16), and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe(17), nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen’s arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the EU(18). He didn’t of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website, www.arrestblair.org, whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I’ve laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available for as long as Blair lives. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=-Ni...age&q=&f=false
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/no...quiry-iraq-war
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...-inquiry-finds
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...legal-law-lord
5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...foreign-policy
6. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
7. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003...rs-and-idiots/
8. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/10/08/thwart-mode/
9. http://downingstreetmemo.com/iraqoptions.html
10. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle387374.ece
11. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4377605.stm
12. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390
13. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDet...ter=18&lang=en
14. Article 5.2, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/...te_English.pdf
15. Astrid Reisinger Coracini, 2010. National Legislation on Individual Responsibility for Conduct Amounting to Aggression, in: Roberto Bellelli (ed.), International Criminal Justice. Lessons Learned and the Challenges Ahead (forthcoming).
16. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008...ustice-undone/
17. http://www.petertatchell.net/direct%20action/mugabe.htm
18. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...resting-blair/
tl;dr specialist
Y'know, you can just link to these political news items GS rather than duplicating them verbatim, especially as without quoting your sources you're breaking copyright laws. That and the fact that this is primarily a gambling forum and most members aren't as bothered about politics as you clearly seem to be.
Forum Manager
Why do people waste such time on this kind of stuff?
Tony Blair will not be arrested and no matter how many facebook sites are set up or petitions made nothing will change that.
In fact the more obsessive the people become the more ridiculous it looks and the less effective they become.
We did, also have an election in 2005 which was heavily trailed as a referendum on the Iraq war due to the fact the oppositon delibratley put forward no policies, and Blair was returned as Premier albeit with a reduced majority.
It is not the cards you are dealt but what you do with them that counts
Forum Member
Links to sources clearly shown in blue & i didn't start this thread but it just so happens one of my inboxes is full of related material, sorry for bothering....
tl;dr specialist
But did you write the original article? Had you asked the Guardian if you could copy it elsewhere on the internet?
I know you didn't start it but Tov was at least offering up genuinely original material in the form of his own opinion. You're just parroting others.& i didn't start this thread but it just so happens one of my inboxes is full of related material, sorry for bothering....
Forum Manager
I thought it was you starting the fund GS until I clicked on it.
Got to say the bloke is a total loon who has set that site up. Particularly liked his advice on performing a citizens arrest on Tony Blair.
This is from the site and i quote..
It is essential that they are pursued peacefully and calmly, not least for your own safety: at no point should you create the impression that you mean to harm him, or you could be harmed yourself. The method we recommend is calmly to approach Mr Blair and in a gentle fashion to lay a hand on his shoulder or elbow, in such a way that he cannot have any cause to complain of being hurt or trapped by you, and announce loudly, “Mr Blair, this is a citizens’ arrest for a crime against peace, namely your decision to launch an unprovoked war against Iraq. I am inviting you to accompany me to a police station to answer the charge.”
http://www.arrestblair.org/performing-a-citizens-arrest
Blair must be shaking in his boots especially as he has raised nearly 10 grand before Paypal blocked any more donations. Never mind there is now a facebook page so its all systems go.
It is not the cards you are dealt but what you do with them that counts
Forum Member
Sorry mate, in your little world maybe - the referendum against the illegal, zionist lead, Blair (££) followed, Iraq war, was when 2.1 million people turned out Feb 15th 2003, against.
The only reason people vote zionist Labour is because they don't want even more zionist Conservative back.
PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata
Win2Win Racing Club Member
TH sarcastically suggests that "BLIAR MUST BE QUAKING IN HIS BOOTS." I think it's been a long time since he said a truer word.
Why does Bliar sneak in back doors and side doors? Because he is afraid of a citizen's arrest as a WAR CRIMINAL, he knows there are thousands of people waiting for the opportunity so he's keeping a very low profile these days, and he'll have to come to Hereford some day, surely.
He also has to be very careful which countries he visits now, because there are many he can't go to for the same reasons.
He is now a prisoner of his own making and long may it stay that way.
IT'S A VERY SAD COINCIDENCE THAT ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE B LIAR WAS SNEAKING IN THE BACKDOOR TO THE CHILCOT ENQUIRY FOR ANOTHER BRILLIANT ACTING PERFORMANCE --- THE BODY OF YOUNG DANNY COOPER WAS BROUGHT HOME FROM AFGHANISTAN. I KNOW HIS PARENTS, KARL AND CAROLINE WELL, I GO INTO THEIR SHOP NEARLY EVERY DAY AND WHAT CAN YOU SAY TO THEM THAT WOULD EASE THEIR PAIN? NOT MUCH!
I don't think there will be many Hereford votes for Labour at the next election from what I've been hearing.
Forum Member
You see all them deformed babies in Iraq?
One day, justice will prevail - & he, like George Bush, will be held to account.
Simple as that.
I would take you up on a bet but not sure that will be in my lifetime, or theirs for that matter but it sure is a coming....
PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata
Forum Manager
How will justice prevail if it is not in their lifetime?
Dont tell me... you believe in heaven and hell?
Look, I think the war was a mistake, but no one can define conclusivley whether it was legal or not and so there will never be a war trial.
They have to live with their decisions and the consequences it had on many people.
It is not the cards you are dealt but what you do with them that counts
parasite on society
godspot can i ask you what all this zionist claptrap is about, or are you one of those who believe in the great jewish conspiracy myth. i only ask as your signature and reading material made me think you probably are. next you will be telling us the holocaust never happened.
I have an impressive bank of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately, I've lost the combination to this bank.
Permanently Insane
what holocaust ?
The Vegster!
Winner of Ada's Eurovision Game 2014
Win2Win Ltd Administrator
Here's an examples, before the Yanks used Agent Orange in Vietnam, the stats for deformed babies were in about single figures.... for a WHOLE country!!!! Anyway, after the war the stats stayed pretty much the same, until the Viet leader started blaming the Yanks for deformed babies, then 1000's appeared, the vast majority weren't even anywhere near the dropzones.
So whay was that? Well to have a deformed baby in Vietnam was classed as disgusting so no one even mention it, after the glorious leader spoke (and probably paid compo) it became the 'in' thing to admit you have a deformed child so the stats shot up .... similar thing happening in Iraw, not one single bit of evidence points to anything the Yanks done.
FREE Live Odds Comparison Software
Keith Driscoll - Administrator
Managing Director, Win2Win Limited
Filipino UK Filipino Forum | Win2Win Racing - Free Tips
Forum Member
'er, what media?
Here's an examples, before the Yanks used Agent Orange in Vietnam, the stats for deformed babies were in about single figures.... for a WHOLE country!!!! Anyway, after the war the stats stayed pretty much the same, until the Viet leader started blaming the Yanks for deformed babies, then 1000's appeared, the vast majority weren't even anywhere near the dropzones.
So whay was that? Well to have a deformed baby in Vietnam was classed as disgusting so no one even mention it, after the glorious leader spoke (and probably paid compo) it became the 'in' thing to admit you have a deformed child so the stats shot up .... similar thing happening in Iraw, not one single bit of evidence points to anything the Yanks done.
I was quite surprised to see the beeb carrying the story at all & I suppose they only did so cos John Simpson is/was there to cover the election but they soon got rid of that 'so-called' military expert on Breakfast who was accusing the Iraqi's of being to blame once I & no doubt a few others started complaining..
I don't know much about Vietnam but I seen this a few years back:
"Depleted Uranium: 61 years of Uranium Wars"
Leuren Moret at the 2007 Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference -- "Depleted Uranium: 61 years of Uranium Wars" DU, radiation Sep 18, 07
57 min -
http://www.video.google.com/videopla...92019596709070
PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata
Forum Member
I'm sure if you google it, plenty will come up but I think it started in 1897 when Theodore Herzl set up the World Zionist Organisation but it's come a long way since then - to the halls of Westminster no less, if this is anything to by:
Waking up to Israel’s stranglehold over British politics
By Gilad Atzmon
9 February 2010
Gilad Atzmon views the role of Israel lobbyists in Britain’s Iraq Inquiry as a microcosm of the stranglehold of these lobbyists over British politics in general, and warns that the British public had better wake up to this before it is too late.
”One may wonder whether we still need an election in this country. At the end of the day, the vast majority of the British political elite are practically bought by the Israeli lobby.”
The more I read about the Chilcot [Iraq] inquiry the more disturbed I am. The fallacy imbued in the heart of British “democracy” is staggering. While some commentators are concerned with questions to do with the legality of the war, the most crucial issue here is actually the disappearance of ethical judgment from our public and political life. Rather than being concerned with morality and ethics, British politicians are concerned with legalism. In other words, if someone would manage to prove that the war was “legal”, then the murdering of a million and a half Iraqis would be well justified. Let’s face it, our politicians are corrupt to the bone.
http://www.redress.cc/userfiles/imag...tarofDavid.jpg
The Israel lobby dominates Labour and owns most Conservative MPs and other politicians
In fact, the Chilcot inquiry is in itself a pretty disturbing concept. As George Monbiot pointed out a few days ago in the Guardian’s Comment is Free, in the world of British “official inquiries” it is the government that appoints the inquiry’s members and sets its terms of reference. “It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury.” As if this were not enough, none of the inquiry members is an attorney. None of its member is qualified in the art of questioning. Consequently, the inquiry doesn’t have any legal ability, capacity or teeth. It is a farce. It is there to release some public steam. It is there to convey a false image of openness. I believe that the most pathetic statement was pronounced last week by Tony Blair. “People didn’t think that al-Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did,” announced the unchallenged genocidal man in front of inquiry. Basically, we are now blaming the so-called “enemy” for not performing according to “our plans”. I guess that even an illiterate burglar would refrain from using such an argument in the court. Blair obviously got away with it.
But there is one positive side to all this. As sad as this Chilcot inquiry seems to be, the choice of its team members is also revealing. The selection of the panel suggests who the government is inclined to appoint when it needs a whitewash.
On 22 November 2009, as the Chilcot inquiry was preparing to convene, a former British ambassador, Sir Oliver Miles, expressed concerns over the fact that two out of the five members of the inquiry’s committee (40 per cent), Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman, were “strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war”. He also mentioned that both Gilbert and Freedman were Jewish and that Gilbert is a devout Zionist”. Richard Ingrams wondered a week later in the Independent whether the Zionist links to the Iraq invasion would be brushed aside.
At the time Britain was taken to the Iraq war, the chief fundraiser of its governing party was the devout Zionist Lord Michael Levy, who managed to gather a number of wealthy Zionists around him. The inquiry should investigate closely the case of the Zionist parliamentary lobby called “Labour Friends of Israel”.
In the days leading up to the war, it was reported in the Guardian that the forged information about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction originated in an Israeli intelligence agency. It was later revealed that references to Israel in Britain’s Iraq weapons dossier were hushed up. It is crucial that the inquiry establishes whether this was indeed the case. If it was, it would support the contention that Britain was led into a war by people in the service of a foreign country and on behalf of foreign interests."
[There is more & embedded links for reference:
http://www.redress.cc/stooges/gatzmon20100209
PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata
Forum Member
Oboma said that while he was trying to get elected - that Iraq was a mistake.
A jockey makes a mistake, takes the wrong course, Stewards Enquiry, he might get a ban for a few days. Simple.
World leader makes mistake, over a million people are killed - oh well! Let's just carry on regardless - we'll get it right next time eh?
But as far as I'm concerned, it is worse than a mistake - it is an unmitigated 'humanitarian & environmental' disaster.
What if? Let's just suppose for a minute:
Israel strikes at supposed Iranian nuclear facilities (which they are threatening to do)
Iran retaliates & a wider war commences... to the point of an official WW3 scenario... China get roped into helping out Iran (quite possible, business links) & then eventually, Russia too, just to get the job done & add a few finishing touches.
So, the West is lost & millions more will have perished.
Do you not think that when it's all over, the victors wont have like a War Crimes Tribunal, pull up a few scapegoats to pin the blame, set up perhaps a League Of or United Nations, say, the Shanghai Co-operative Organisation or something to prevent such a thing ever happening again?
Ex-service people that I talk to say I shouldn't worry, we have superior fire-power that will sort it all out. Yes, yes but didn't Hitler have superior fire-power back in '39?
As for the heaven & hell bit, I believe they are both illusory concepts.
PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata
Forum Member
Sorry, take it all back - I didn't realise Tony Blair & George Bush had become nurses at Fallujah central hospital.
PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata
Win2Win Ltd Administrator
That media :splapme
FREE Live Odds Comparison Software
Keith Driscoll - Administrator
Managing Director, Win2Win Limited
Filipino UK Filipino Forum | Win2Win Racing - Free Tips
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
