Copy filed by your new feature reporter 'Blurb'


TONY BLAIR - a once normal vote-hungry, wide-eyed politician; and our Prime Minister. He now totally and steadfastly ignores a significant proportion of his own electorate; and fervently risks embarrassing open splits within his own party and government - not to mention how his bizarre actions and questionable intentions are curiously viewed in a wider Europe - not that that seems to matter any more to Blair.

Harmless English Eccentricity is one thing, but when it threatens to help ignite WAR in the Middle East cauldron it becomes something else altogether, and should be regarded with intense suspicion.

In particular, why us and why now?


The outcome of any such conflict is wholly unpredictable, and too great a RISK for us to proceed with before all possible peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.

True, Hans blix is plodding along at a French snail's pace, but at least it is producing tangible results. Should the process therefore not be stepped up to increase its speed and efficiency if it is a Peaceful Strategy THAT IS WORKING?

When suicide terrorists with potential access to WMD, are ready to martyr themselves, and East/West Religious Differences are thrown into the mix as well, then this unquestioning devotion to the line from the Bush administration threatens to become outright DANGEROUS to the LIVES of many people including ourselves. WAR is not something you can 'switch off' when you get tired or have had enough.

Tony Blair is not losing touch with reality, but, more worryingly, is deliberately choosing to ignore it. Why is he doing this, and why now?

Who is really pulling his strings, and what is the nature of their hold over him?

Probing questions deserve to be asked - and answered convincingly - not just kicked into touch by some slick and experienced politician.


The clapped out old mantra "Well you'll just have to trust us on this" is not an option, when people are going to die (and die horribly) - especially when TB's 'killer dossier' against Iraq turned out to be the late night scribblings of some 29 year old kid from twelve years ago! What a hoot when his essay was hailed as erudite and persuasive 'insight' by Colin Powell before the UN! Sure hope the kid got an 'A' for it.

SLAVE TO THE RHYTHM (Not Grace Jones this time)

It is almost as if TB has become a slave bonded to some unknown Higher Authority, which is certainly not the British electorate. It also appears he is an unwilling one too if his pained expressions, and squirming and wriggling on TV before picked audiences are anything to go by.


So why the sudden and absolute transformation from what he was before into a deaf, 'wreckless' war hawk, prepared to flout International Law and those UN vetos HE chooses to see as 'unreasonable'

Admittedly, France in its determination for peace miscalculated, overplaying its hand by saying it would veto 'any' resolution that would lead to war. They should have kept that one in closer to their chest, and letting the pattern of their intentions emerge gradually as events unfolded instead of declaring their hand, thereby making themselves a hostage to fortune and losing the moral high ground.


Why MUST this war happen at all costs, when every other alternative has not so far not been exhausted? Why were troops foolishly deployed BEFORE diplomacy had fully run its course - unless of course, you just want to provoke a war paid for with the blind loyalty and lives of your service personnel? It is as if the Bush administration could not even be bothered to finish 'going through the motions' for a peaceful alternative. Did they not recently cancel a peace visit from Egypt and others saying they did not think it would serve any 'useful purpose'? Since when was world peace not a useful purpose? The Bush administration want this war to happen - and they want US to pay for it. I look around me, and I see so many honest, ordinary good people, just trying to do their best, and get by in life. And Bush/Blair now put war on us.

What they mean is peace does not serve the purposes of the Bush administration!


Why is TB's deaf ear turned to us Labour and non-Labour voters alike? Why has our Prime Minister ceased to exist as such - now only to be a 'remote repeater' of whatever gets churned out of Washington?


Ah, yes. Wars are expensive, so we'll need plenty of money.

Does USA now mean more to TB than GB? And if so, why? War in Iraq will cost us more than we can ever afford - and not just militarily - yet fear not! Have faith! For despite the crisis in health and education funding, a bottomless money pit has suddenly happened up out of nowhere, and Gordon Brown now tells us that 'we' (that's a polite way of saying you and me) are going to 'PAY WHATEVER IT COSTS'. Aye Lad, that you will. So how come we can now afford a WAR for someone else, but not pay for those things needed by the British people themselves in peacetime? Think maybe I lost the plot somewhere.

So where did these limitless funds suddenly appear from? They certainly weren't there the last time I looked - or are you telling me we're gonna finance this unnecessary and dangerous desert adventure on hire purchase? I know they're mad, but they're not that mad really...are they?

Aye Lad,'WE' will indeed do the Paying and the Killing and the Dying, if this unpredictable madness is allowed to proceed with our involvement.


Yet at least it's some small comfort to know that Chancellor Brown has all that money at his fingertips. It just doesn't seem to have seeped down as far as the squaddies on the front line, whom everyone seems to value so highly. Never mind, they'll just have to make out against sarin, tabun and the cruelest of battlefield blistering agents in NBC suits 2 sizes TOO SMALL, with respirator filters YEARS past expiry date, and a DEAF Prime Minister DELIBERATELY sending them into harm's way! Yet he doubtless respects them all deeply, and salutes their heroic efforts. Oh, give me strength to survive all the bullshit they expect us to swallow.

And don't thnk about coming home for tea either. There isn't any. It's all held up in Al Jazwat or some other stupid nowhere, just waiting to find its way through to you. Suggest you borrow from the Yanks next door. They're serving up Starbucks and McDonalds. Maybe there's a also Friday night film you can get in on if you plead poverty?

It feels like I am writing fiction here, but I am just describing the world I find around me every day. GeeWhizz what happened? Where did the world go? It all seemed to start the day Bush opened his mouth without the script.


In the final days of the last world war, advancing allied forces greatly feared the crumbling Nazi regime would resort to gas warfare as a last ditch throw of the dice or 'spoiler' to make the cost of allied victory that much higher. Thankfully they did not - but might a defeated Saddam pass a smallpox vial to an Al Quaida operative for dispersal in London, Washington or Madrid as retaliation?


It cannot be denied the UK is a popular destination with asylum seekers and economic migrants, less because of the balmy climate, but more because of the plentiful benefit handouts and open door entry policy. You have enforceable rights the moment you land, and teams of lawyers queue up to represent you - for free! It's El Dorado - especially if you're smart enough to lose your I.D. papers prior to arrival.

A HIGH proportion of of these 'guests' are Iraqui. Is there not the remote possibility Saddam has infiltrated elite Republican Guard / Special Forces suicide units equipped with bio-weapons into this influx of 'visitors'. It is the obvious thing to do; he said he's been preparing months for war, and I can believe it because he's cunning. Our entry restrictions are virtually non-existent, and Saddam has said he will wage war ANYWHERE in the world. Bio warefare is the poor man's nuclear bomb, and Blair ignores it at OUR peril. What better way to sap the morale of front line troops (who'll have it hard enough anyway), than by destroying their families at home? War is not an american video game. People die.


Why must this unnecessary war have to happen at all costs? Why us and not Norway or Canada or Finland? Why now? Even Iraqi exiles commented that we had twelve years in which to send aid and medicine, so why now? Why not five years ago, or five years hence? Could it be that the Bush administration - not America - needs WAR for some reason, and wants an excuse to clothe its abominable intentions in legitimacy?


It goes like this: everyone knows Saddam's a 'bad guy', so if we attack him, then that obviously makes us out as the 'good guys' by contrast. Right?

This logic is as childish as it is transparent. This conflict is being CONTRIVED, and WE are being 'engineered' into it. Although not eveyone can see it .

Why NOW is the plight of the poor opressed Iraqi population suddenly of such importance? Not so long ago this would have been seen as 'meddling in the internal affairs of an independent sovereign state'. The Bush administration wants an excuse / pretext for WAR.

War deliberately brought about is mass murder. So who are the advocates of this mass murder? Bush, Blair, Hoon, Straw. Colin Powell is basically a good guy 'just following orders' of his President. He, like too many others, has no choice or his career and retirement pension would be destroyed.

Jack Straw - a smarmy, meely-mouthed apologist for an unnecessary WAR and the above-named individuals are The Architects of Death. Funny how if you knife a guy in an ally you're a murderer, but if you manufacture excuses for 100s of people to kill 100s more in an organised way, then you're a 'statesman'.


Yet TB is not alone in this grotesque and dangerous escapade. Jose Maria Aznar is in a similar position - and again why? A recent survey in a Spanish newspaper showed 87% of those taking part were against any war. And then I vaguely recall there were those protest marches here and there, when a couple of guys showed up in London on 15th February.

Some said that for every one taking part there were more there 'in spirit', wanting to march, but for whatever reason, chosing not to declare themselves on an issue where feelings for and against run deeply - and with little middle ground for those who are neither part of the problem nor the solution...


Why is the polarisation so strong, causing deep entrenchment and wide splits that will take for ever to heal? Why do Blair and Aznar want this US war at all costs, whereas Chirac, Shroder and others are so totally against it?


Is there not a behavior PATTERN at work here? Can you join up the dots, and see a picture emerging? Does it point to anything - or anyone - you hadn't perhaps considered before? This idea is perhaps one to watch as events unfold over the coming weeks.


What is our contribution worth alongside military might of USA? We are a drop in the ocean compared to them; we're just along for the ride to say in future times 'we stood with you, we were there'; when we really just held the towels for them.

Our contribution is so badly needed by the Americans, they haven't seriously thought about what they want us to do. "Oh say bud, you can just go stand over there...We'll call ya when we need ya."

Coming appropriately on the day the US demonstrated its new 21,000 pound bomb, cuddly old Mr Rumsfeld dropped one of his own indicating the US was tired of waiting for TB to get his domestic politics together, and the US was ready to 'go it alone' and 'just do it' - or some other stupid buzz phrase for today.


Britain's participation is clearly NOT EVEN NECESSARY, yet even so TB is Hell-bent on dragging us into a war, which will make US A PRIME TARGET for TERRORIST RETALIATION. Such would then give him the excuse to put the country on a complete war footing and introduce conscription. Which is perhaps what he and Bush are secretly engineering - world war.

So when Saddam's cornered, there'll be a 9/11 bio weapon let off in London that'll give the British "cause" to want to kill every Iraqui no the planet, and hey presto! There's you third World War.

That's how you get a real war started Mr Blair - you do it in STAGES until it builds up its own MOMENTUM then you're away!


It is a cardinal error to leave a ruthless, cunning, enemy with no way out. he bahaves (fights) in a different way altogether. Always leave the enemy broken, but still with something left to lose. The fear of losing what little they have left can then be held over them, so htey are easier to control / manage away into quiet obscurity, so the world can move on. Threaten someone with total anihilation, and they will fight like there's no tomorrow - because, for them, There is No Tomorrow! Beware of a provoked and cornered enemy. Build a pressure-release valve into yuor plan - leave them an ignminious escape route to maintain BALANCE overall approach.


Yet because of this manufactured war where our participation is neither warranted nor justified, legally or morally, Tony Blair will send men and women to their deaths. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters. TB and GWB will proceed to end their existence on earth - deliberately!

TB will of course be careful to pay lip service and cry crocodile tear over 'our gallant war dead...The Fallen...The Few' or however you want to couch it.


The lucky ones will be killed outright.The unlucky will be painfully crippled for life, or suffer Gulf War Syndrome and be denied compensation because it costs the government LESS MONEY to pretend there's no such thing. Funny how Gordon Brown's bottomless money pit will have clammed up by then.

Doubtless their 'heroic sacrifice' and contribution will be deeply appreciated by a grateful nation - that's then gonna tell 'em to go scratch when they don't need 'em any more like they do with all the broken old soldiers.

"Gulf War Syndrome? They're all imagining it son - workshy malingerers, that's what I say. Never have had it in my day, son."

"No grand dad, and they never had depleted uranium shells either."

"A spec of dust wouldn't have stopped us lad. We'd have been straight up and over the top."


Now where have you heard that old chestnut before? A 'quick' war is just an trick to win over the gullible waverers to get the war started. Then once it's going, you tell 'em "Oh well circumstances have changed. Now it'll all be over by NEXT Christmas. Didn't we say?"


"We're goin' in to free the Iraquis from tyrany and operssion."

So you're gonna liberate the Iraquis by bombing and killing 'em? Didn't you also pull that one in Vietnam to liberate the Vietnamese from same?

"That was different"

Yes, I agree with you on that one. Back then the enemy had no means of starting MULTIPLE epidemics with antibiotic-resistant bio weapons in your major cities back home - while you're out eating sand and chemicals on the front line.

no wonder they took your phone and stopped your email!

Do you remember the Foot and Mouth Disease plague that decimated our livestock a couple of years back? Bio weapons are purposely engineered to be virulent and insidious. Foot and mouth spread like wildfire - so too would a weaponised virus sliently released in a London cinema or theater. Then everyone goes home and inadvertently gives it to their family and those they love most in life.

"It's nothing luv, just a cough and a sneeze..."

"You're running a temperature, you're burning up!"

"Oh I'll be all right with a good night's sleep and a Lemsip."

"...Yes Doctor, he's collapsed and I can't wake him..."

Any bio weapon will be spread by air travellers - like the current incurable Asian flu that's just appeared in Hong Kong. God help us if ever bio weapons are used by Saddam, or anyone else.


Yes, our diplomatic links with the US will be strengthened by our standing with an ally in time of conflict, albeit one they created themselves.

But we appear to have been missed off the Christmas list for some of those juicy reconstruction contracts that Bush is doling out to his buddies stateside. I'm sure they'll come round to us in the end.


Perhaps war might one day have been necssary to neutralise whatever threat Saddam Hussein presents. But not until all other peaceful alternatives have been exhausted - and Blix appears to be producing results.

Saddam Hussein is a despot and tyrant to his own people, but not to us outside Iraq. He wants only to stay in power, and has no beef with us or any interest in supplying Al Quaida with WMD to attack us with, since he would be well aware of the retaliation it would bring.

Is not North Korea potentially a more international threat with its advanced nuclear programme? And why go after Saddam Hussein before you've nailed Bin Laden?


Saddam Hussein is not a fool. He is a cunning streetwise rattlesnake, who has consistently wrong-footed the American clowns, and ill-prepared dozy British they have in tow.

Even now laughter rings out from his bunker. If he has been able to split the West so decisively, without firing a single shot, then he should not be underestimated in battle by over-confident Americans, who just want to let hte machines do the fighting so they can all go home heros.

If truth be told, Saddam's guile has not really split the West: it is that the case for war is WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT and UTTERLY TRANSPARENT, and many people know it - the deadly scam Bush and Blair ar trying to perpetrate on the world.

>> A 'JUST WAR'? <<

If 500 people lie dead or dying in Piccadilly Circus or Trafalgar Square - and horribly so - after the release of something nasty from Al Quaida equipped by a provoked and cornered Saddam Hussein, then will TB jump up on his soapbox and say 'Told you so. This proves how dangerous Saddam Hussein, Al Quaida and WMD are. This is why we need WAR against these people now more than ever.'

In truth they will have died because TB made us an unnecessary target for retaliation.

Actually, if these things are so easy to manufacture, then should we not stop 'rogue states' from acquiring the KNOWLEDGE to build them by denying university places to nationals from those contries? Of course it would not stop them, but we don't have to make it easy for them, leaving the door wide open!


Is TB gambling that we will all rally round his war once the bullets start flying? It's inexcusable the troops aren't properly equipped - and what about our non-existent Civil Defense? We're wide open and Blair knows it, although he doubtless has a steel room somewhere for Cherie and the children. How will your family cope? In the last war the population got given gas masks - what about US this time? Ah, but hten that would cost the government MONEY, which they only seem willing to spend for OFFENSIVE not DEFENSIVE purposes.


1. Bush will go to war regardless

2. TB will follow him into war regardless of the consequences for the UK

3. TB will wage war WITHOUT a second UN resolution - either because it will have been vetoed by France and / or Russia; or because he will not submit one anyway knowing it will be vetoed, and there could be subsequent legal complications for disobeying a UN veto

4. There will then be a leadership challenge in the Labour Party because TB - without a second UN resolution - has dragged us into a war we neither want, nor can afford - not to mention the irrevocable loss of human life

5. GB, London, will have become a prime terrorist target for retaliation by Al Quaida, equipped by Saddam Hussein with WMD


Nice one Tone. You've really screwed us, and yourself too in the process. So WHY d'ya do it? Any reason in particular? Cherie not taking care of you like she should, or you just got bored staring out the window at No.10?


I remain Your Obedient Servant, and Keeper of The Seven Jars


(Copy filed from Al Jazwat airbase - 03h29 Eastern Pacific Time)

research material



Back to the European Continent Menu
Back to News Archive Menu

Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.

FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

United States Code: Title 17, Section 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.