bangkaew

re your last post you really need to either poison or bring in pest control to shoot them... or if you have done that and they came back, get 2 fully grown thai ridgeback dogs or even a pitbull.

This is bleeding into thinly veiled anti-semitic conspiracy theories. If you don't believe me, simply google Rothschild banking conspiracy and watch the wacko web sites appear. Same rhetoric. No place here!

If you really believe Obama is putting sanctions on Iran because he is a puppet of the Rothschilds, there are plenty of openings on the conspiracy theory forums.

who said the banksters are Jewish? Rothschild might be but the WASP skull and bones, Rockefeller etc are not. The jibe of anti-semitism is used by the non Jewish banksters to protect them! The Israel government happen to be Jewish, so what? I am British but am not responsible for Queen Victoria or Rhodes. Most conspiracy theories i have heard say MI6 do all the hits anyway!

Yes I agree Iran should not have nukes, back to same old question.If Israel can have then then why should not the rest of the middle east have then ??

To answer the question - because Israel is a responsible country run by adults and Iran isn't.

IF Israel has nukes, they are the model of how a country with nukes should behave. They have never threatened their neighbors with them even though they are surrounded by countries who want to push them into the sea. Saudi Arabia isn't complaining about Israeli nukes but they are worried about Iran having them - why? Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria also don't complain about Israel having nukes. None of these countries are racing to develop a nuke of their own to counter balance the dreaded Israelis. Once Iran declares it has a nuke, the race for nukes will begin. Again, WHY?

yes and no. The saudis etc are paid puppets of the west. Israel constantly breaks international law. But yes iran having nukes is bad news.

Perhaps the US is not the real aggressor in this instance...

Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNATEHRAN

(Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrierwhich left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.

"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.

"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.

http://news.yahoo.co...-082124042.html

If Obama expects to have any credibility in the Arab world, he will turn that Carrier Battle Group around and head back to Bahrain. Now is the time to call their bluff.

another gulf of tonkin incident brewing me thinks.

With today's media coverage???

like your signature btw. The media cover what they feel like. The 'under pants' bomber eg was a false flag and a Detroit lawyer testified as much and although CNN or equivalent covered it, no one seemed phased. People still think 'can't be'.

not at all. Hancock is a researcher and journalist. Icke believes some crazy things and basically believes everything he is told. Like iran's president, obama etc are actually on the same team and are 8' lizards!

David Icke was also a researcher and journalist!

David icke seems a lovely guy and who knows he might be right. But the difference between him and Hancock is that he thinks that absolutely everything was done by the negative agenda. The pyramids, stone henge, every PM and US President is/was a negative force. While Hancock ,in his research thinks that of course you have negative agendas, but it is not everything and that most things started off positive but sometimes they have been corrupted.

iran having nukes would stop war with them.

You assume Iran has rational leadership. I reckon you are pro Iran. That's OK. I detest their regime and would love to see it toppled. Saudi doesn't trust Iran and thus would begin a major proliferation of such weapons in the region.

certainly not pro iran's government but certainly not pro starting a war with them either. If you are pro war you should sign up.

This is the G W Bush maxim, if you are not in favour of attacking them you must be pro Iran. Intellectual pygmyism. But of course Dubya was a draft dodger, along with most of the other warmongering neo con chickenhawks, Cheyney, Wofowitz, Rumsfeld etc. Even good old Bill o Reilly was one. They don't come much nuttier than that lot. Bush invaded Iraq to stop Gog and Magog from unleashing their fury on the Middle East, with Rumsfeld attaching warlike quotes from the Old Testament to his war reports to Bush. Five star general Wesley Clark summed it up in his lecture in California in 2007. Regime change is the order of the day, get that Rothschild central bank installed in Tehran. Your other point is an excellent one. How about passing a law that makes it compulsory that close family members of Senators, Congressmen, Members of Parliament etc voting for war would automatically be drafted to the sharp end, provided they are of eligible age. That would concentrate their minds wonderfully!

Exactly. What the US learned from vietnam - another pointless war, started by a false flag and one that roosevelt warned jfk to avoid, is that to ensure public apathy, DO NOT HAVE A DRAFT. All these war mongers should take a trip up to Laos and go to an American mine field.

iran having nukes would stop war with them.

You assume Iran has rational leadership. I reckon you are pro Iran. That's OK. I detest their regime and would love to see it toppled. Saudi doesn't trust Iran and thus would begin a major proliferation of such weapons in the region.

certainly not pro iran's government but certainly not pro starting a war with them either. If you are pro war you should sign up.

If Iran blocks the straits or build a nuclear weapon and violate the treaties that they have signed, THEY are declaring war and need to be stopped.

did you say that when Israel or the US break international law?

iran having nukes would stop war with them.

You assume Iran has rational leadership. I reckon you are pro Iran. That's OK. I detest their regime and would love to see it toppled. Saudi doesn't trust Iran and thus would begin a major proliferation of such weapons in the region.

certainly not pro iran's government but certainly not pro starting a war with them either. If you are pro war you should sign up.

Perhaps the US is not the real aggressor in this instance...

Iran threatens action if U.S. carrier returns: IRNATEHRAN

(Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrierwhich left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday.

"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA.

"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.

http://news.yahoo.co...-082124042.html

If Obama expects to have any credibility in the Arab world, he will turn that Carrier Battle Group around and head back to Bahrain. Now is the time to call their bluff.

another gulf of tonkin incident brewing me thinks.

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it's fair to compare Graham Hancock to Icke!

Maybe not fair, but is it accurate to do so?

not at all. Hancock is a researcher and journalist. Icke believes some crazy things and basically believes everything he is told. Like iran's president, obama etc are actually on the same team and are 8' lizards!

---------

---------

iran having nukes would stop war with them.

You assume Iran has rational leadership. I reckon you are pro Iran. That's OK. I detest their regime and would love to see it toppled. Saudi doesn't trust Iran and thus would begin a major proliferation of such weapons in the region.

certainly not pro iran's government but certainly not pro starting a war with them either. If you are pro war you should sign up.

---------

--------

It would save me a lot of time and reading if u just told me.

Think David Icke and you are not far off

I don't think it is fair to compare Graham hand to David Icke!

Just because all human kind evolved from one female does not mean she was the only one. There were probably hundreds of female humans that existed that long ago, it just means that most of the exclusive progeny of the other females have died out. It doesn't mean that many humans don't have DNA from those other females as well.

We have recently discovered that there was mating between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals which explains why our immune system is what it is.

thanks. That has actually explained it!

Reread the thread, snookums. I was talking about the anti-semitic so called "banned" author that Midas was promoting, not the whistle blowing dude. Please be more careful in your posting as this has become annoying. The mercenary whistle blowing dude may be correct about Israel's program (very old news really) but I reckon anyone saying Israel was behind the assassination of JFK is insane.

Look at it another way. If you were forced to bet 1000 dollars to guess whether Israel had nukes or not, which way would you bet? The secret thing is part of their strategy. Lets assume they've got them. Like any nation that has them, they won't dispose of all of them. I assume Iran will be getting them too and once they do we are stuck with a nuclear Iran. Which means shortly after a nuclear Saudi, a nuclear Egypt, etc. Get the problem?

Yes, I do want Iran to be stopped. Israel is a non issue as explained above ... too late. No, I don't expect Iran will be stopped.

iran having nukes would stop war with them.

2 points here.

1.99%of universities throughout history have said that something is fact and later proven wrong. On the whole they are repeater of knowledge institutions.

2.I am not debating evolution but universities say it is only Darwin's model and I am saying that we can not, as the universities do, dismiss ancient texts that say aliens tinkered with our DNA along the way. We do not know exactly HOW we evolved.

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

I too would be interested in the actual ancient texts. I hope they are not Top Secret ones.

read Zachariah Sitchen and Graham Hancock finger-prints of the gods.

1. Your point is?.........

2. What ancient texts say aliens tinkered with DNA? What supporting evidence is there? Why do you say we don't know how we evolved?

Babylon, sumer, Egyptian, sanskrit, zulu legend and no doubt more. No evidence. We evolve to this day, no doubt partly due to Darwinian model but we don't know what else causes it. Take the African Eve common ancestor. What was her mother if not human? homo-erectus? Well that is a jump. If it was only survival of the fittest then there would be a gradual merge in fossil remains, part homo-e, part human. Also, why didn't other homo-e's evolve in to humans? That would mean we did not have a common human ancestor, but a common homo-e ancestor or before that. Or did the first few humans kill all the homo-es?

They would not feel threatened if they were not trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of treaties that they have signed.

is there any proof? Israel has illegal nukes and are just as likely to use them as iran. But as with everything else Israel does illegally it is ok with the west. Why should iran not test weapons? What right has the US got to have a carrier off iran's shores? Pure hypocrisy.

We go to war with oil producing nations, not for oil, but to secure the oil supply by putting a puppet in power. If we go to war with iran it is because the west wants regime change.

Do you have any 'proof' that Israel has nuclear weapons?

The US, and any other nation, has the right to navigate the international waters of the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

I believe it is called using 70,000 tons of diplomacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Iran is playing a dangerous game of one-upmanship.

Perhaps but the game only exists because certain groups push for it.

They ( Iran ) would not feel the need to flex if they did not feel threatened.

They would not feel threatened if they were not trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of treaties that they have signed.

is there any proof? Israel has illegal nukes and are just as likely to use them as iran. But as with everything else Israel does illegally it is ok with the west. Why should iran not test weapons? What right has the US got to have a carrier off iran's shores? Pure hypocrisy.

We go to war with oil producing nations, not for oil, but to secure the oil supply by putting a puppet in power. If we go to war with iran it is because the west wants regime change.

could you maybe borrow a dog from a shelter or temple that is proven to be up to the job?

I was going to get one last year and they would have been 30k a pup. Got a brown thai dog instead.

University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University College London,

University of Edinburgh, Imperial College London all teach evolution and not an alternative theory.

And? So what? They all recommended leaches at the time leaches were a cure all.

Paleontology - the earth science that studies fossil organisms and related remains. It is taught at 99% of the universities in the world and explains the changes in organisms through evolution. There is no debate about evolution. You can’t graduate from college taking a natural science course and debate evolution. You would flunk the course. It is like saying 2 plus 2 don’t equal 4 and expecting to pass 2nd grade arithmetic.

The boiling point of water is not debated anymore. It is not the theory of the boiling point of water. I’ll grant you that at some point in time someone probably debated the boiling point of water but not now. Maybe there are some tribes in the Amazon who are debating the boiling point of water today but to debate evolution falls in the same relative scientific level as relying on Amazon tribesmen for your scientific knowledge.

Maybe someday someplace a spaceship will discover an old guy with a perverse sense of humor who actually created the earth. Of course that is a possibility and that old guy may be also able to change the boiling point of water; who knows. Seems to me a bit silly to hold out hope at this point in time that he will be found. Universities are the repository of scientific knowledge and they have not debated evolution in my 65 years of life experience.

2 points here.

1.99%of universities throughout history have said that something is fact and later proven wrong. On the whole they are repeater of knowledge institutions.

2.I am not debating evolution but universities say it is only Darwin's model and I am saying that we can not, as the universities do, dismiss ancient texts that say aliens tinkered with our DNA along the way. We do not know exactly HOW we evolved.

Education has improved drastically over the last 40 years or so. As has standard of living and diet.

Intelligent people still lived 2,000 years ago, only there were fewer of them. The world was a poorer place so fewer people had access to what would help them to raise intelligent children. Take those people from 2,000 years ago and put them in today's society and they'll likely be just as smart.

It is not some great jump in evolution at all, it is simply us living healthier lives than before. We've always has that capability of intelligence but have not always has the resources to take advantage. In much the same way the N. Koreans are getting shorter because of low nutrition, they are getting smaller because their children have less to eat and therefore do not grow as much.

agree that diet is the likely answer but the tests are meant to be independent of education. But is today's diet better? some say after ww2 we ate the healthiest. People can develop their brains... but more in 03 than 91?