Prince Charles Against War On Iraq

by late night reader Mon Feb 10, 2003 02:12

would be interesting to know, y'know.

by fggf Mon Feb 10, 2003 03:26

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/news3.html
heres the link do you find it hard to believe seeing how his ex-wife was murdered while with a arab

by Dirk Mon Feb 10, 2003 03:43

"What I am saying is true. The British Establishment is happy to try and ridicule me and I believe many of them are happy that Diana and Dodi were killed

"A Friend shocked me the other day saying he thought Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed had been assassinated. Eh? Yes, he said, it was as clear as day that MI5 or, as it may be, MI6 had been responsible for their deaths. What shocked me most was his judgment that our security forces had been wholly justified in their action. My friend reckoned it was right to prevent a marriage between the Princess and Mr. Fayed, and if this meant they had to be bumped off, so be it. Intelligence agents were in the Hotel."

Ex-MI6 Agent Richard Tomlin-son claims that the MI6 was involved "in the Paris assassination where the Princess of Wales, Diana, was killed".

The Israeli intelligence service MOSSAD has got a free hand to kill whenever, whoever and wherever. Influence of the Israel-lobbies almost anywhere in the world.
"MOSSAD's business is spying and killing. MOSSAD does that in the USA just as freely as in Great Britain, France or Germany.
What would be a motive for the MOSSAD to murder Princess Diana? Well, Israel would have been in trouble if Diana had married Dodi Fayed. Think about it. What if Diana would have visited Palestine as a mother to a half Arabic child and as a wife to an Arab man? Imagine the masses cheering Diana, embracing her as one of theirs. What if the Princess had then hugged a Palestinian child in front of hundreds of TV-cameras? Perhaps a child whose parents were murdered by Israeli death squads! A child whose father might have been shaken to death as a method of Israeli interrogation procedures - shaken until his artery was bursting open. A child whose pregnant mother was beaten to death because a family member of her's was an alleged "terrorist" against Israel. The truth about the Israeli terror regime would have been revealed to the world - thanks to Diana.

Last but not least, the powerful Israel lobby surrounding the British Royals could not tolerate an Arabic influence inside the British Establishment.

by iosaf Mon Feb 10, 2003 11:59

style. short paragraphs. careful use of grammar.
insights like "Charles—who reads the Koran every day and often adopts Islamic dress at home—spends long hours discussing the Middle East's problems with Saudi royal family members".
wow. that means Charles in a kaftan.
so Blair is unpopular with the Country Wide Alliance isnt he? Can you imagine these billionaires spending long hours discussing the Middle East´s problems? sitting around the yacht perhaps or watching a horse race chewing some hashish and smoking a bong.

HRH charles of England- "I am very worried about the Middle East situation, do you have any thoughts to share Dr GHAZI ALGOSAIBI?

HE Ambassador Of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Dr Ghazi Algosaibi-
"well let me qoute myself your highness -"I am surprised at those who have criticised my condemnation of the brutal, illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. I would like to refer them to the comments of the prominent British Politician, who happens to be of the Jewish faith, The Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP. Mr Kaufman wrote in the Daily Mail on 14th March:
"This week's pictures of Palestinian prisoners being lined up blindfolded must have caused a fearful pang to many decent Jews who love Israel, as they did to me. Indeed, there is a growing resistance movement of decent Israelis against what is being done to Palestinians, more than a thousand of whom - including babies and small children - have killed by the Israelis in the past year.
More than 200 reserve officers have signed a declaration refusing to serve in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, and denouncing their government's policy of occupying, deporting, destroying, blockading, killing, starving and humiliating an entire people - the Palestinians."
I do hope nobody will find these statements "wrong and insensitive"

HRH Charles - do you have the skins? and tell me more about your often amusing book concerning the sexual awakening of young men.

HE Ambassador Of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Dr Ghazi Algosaibi-
oh yes your highness that´s currently available to buy online at Columbia University Press.
"An Apartment Called Freedom" A Novel by
Ghazi Algosaibi Translated by Leslie McLoughlin

Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom, tells the often humorous story of young men coming of age in a new world of sexual and political freedom.

For more information, please contact Customer Service athttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/0710305508.HTM

http://www.saudiembassy.org.uk/news-and-press-releases/latest-press-release-2002-Jul-10.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1562755.stm

HRH Charles head of several regiments likes to ponce around with medals on his chest ["He has this lunatic view he is the voice of the people."]
----- so Dr Algosaibi what about this?

Another outrageous and false comment has been reported from Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Britain. On July 9th, Ambassador Ghazi Algosaibi [GAH-zee al-go-SIGH-bee] accused Israelis of atrocities worse than those committed by the German Nazis. At London’s University of Westminster, the Saudi official said that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is "far more severe than anything the Germans did
when they occupied Europe in World War Two."

HE Dr Ghazi Algosaibi (ambassador of SAudi Arabia to the court of St James)
-oh that they dont like me, check out the last bit of that report if i can remember it...

"On April 13th, he published a poem in the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper al-Hayat that praised Palestinians who blow themselves up to murder Israeli civilians. In the poem, Algosaibi referred to an eighteen-year-old female suicide bomber who killed two Israelis and wounded more than two dozen at a Jerusalem supermarket in March. He called the suicide bomber a "martyr" and said the "doors of heaven are opened" to her.

On June 5th, Ambassador Algosaibi was interviewed in the Saudi-owned London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Again, he praised suicide terrorists and said he would like to carry out a so-called "martyrdom operation" himself if he were younger.

It is extremely disturbing that a Saudi Arabian diplomat would support suicide terrorism -- all the more so in view of the fact that both murder and suicide are forbidden by Islam. Diplomats are sent abroad to represent their country. But do the hateful, untrue comments of Ghazi Algosaibi represent the views of Saudi Arabia? If not, why does he continue to serve as a Saudi ambassador?"

source.
http://www.ibb.gov/editorials/10020.htm

by Terry Mon Feb 10, 2003 21:09

For what it's worth, I never really had too much interest in the Diana death, but there was a story
going around that some kind of powerful bright flash was used as part of the killing, with
the implication that this temporarily stunned the driver and caused him to lose control.

Regardless of that part of the story, I have come across stuff elsewhere that describes
the principle behind this which I find feasible.

A modern camera flash is quite bright and is very rapid, but recent advances in optics and
the technology of light production allows for the creation of super-bright flashes in
very short timespans. This is not disputed and is actually standard stuff really, except
applications are more likely to be in physics research applications.

When the human eye receives one of these bright flashes, there is naturally a nerve pulse
sent into the relevant parts of the brain, but in the case of the super-bright flashes, it
has been suggested that the nerve pulse is so large and rapid, that the brain is temporarily
over-whelmed, (like you might be if you got a huge fright) and it takes up to a few minutes
to recover. Effectively the brain is prevented from functioning properly for those few months
and you are sort of left in a stare. Crucially your ability to remember the event and any
other events that take place immediately following it, would be severly impaired.

While this may seem conspiracy stuff to some, the physics behind the technology are sound,
and the brain effects would seem very reasonable. Of course this doesn't prove or disprove
that such technology has been used, but it would seem to me, that it would be too good to
leave unused according to the military/intelligence agency mindset.