The One Eye is watching you!

[Medley of extemporanea]

what is this, it seems everyone in the world is listened to that freemsn tape. i remember i even downloaded Madonna’s song to play it backwards and see if it was true, i didn't hear nothing, and samething with hotel California, but am sure it’s there because the tape told me so.

 

Oh and if you’ve seen that movie Lion Heart, one of the guys mentioned in the tape, Robert the Bruce is in the movie, and no mention of the knights templers, but in the movie the uncle of the main character HAS ONLY ONE EYE, and he’s the one that trains him, so dijjal trained him.

 

So that proves that what PsYcHo_SuE’s said is all true. Pretty soon the NWO will own us all. Even now as am typing this they are watching me using super computers in underground cities. Or reading my brain with Microwave Vertical Array ELF technology. :raps aluminum foil around head:. Anyway, the logo of the one eye is true, knowledge is power, and to protect yourself from the dijjal eye, you have to Educate-Yourself, a great site to learn about it is http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/ and learn the trueth about cellphone towers and ELF technology at http://educate-yourself.org/dc/dclatestonmctowerarrays25may02.shtml

[Curly]

Hang on the people who wrote the site sound a little schizophrenic if you ask me. :confused: You realise I was joking about the tin foil,right!? right... yeah!!!

 

I don't think anyone can control your mind to that degree, other wise they could already be controlling our minds and we wouldn't be here talking about it.

[Medley of extemporanea]

They already are controlling are minds, they just don’t’ want us to know that they are controlling our minds so they let us talk about it because by taking about it we wouldn’t realize that we in fact are not talking about are just programmed to talk about it… you see what am saying, haven’t you seen the matix.

[Haaruun]

LOOOL @ The one il is watching u...this scary one il thing reminds me that one il in lord of the ring

[Medley of extemporanea]

that's right haruun, it's everywhere!

[Curly]

Okay...lol Haniif, you sound crazier than me!

[underdog]

I agree, sue.

Mind control sounds so sudden and impossible, but if you look at it as conditioning then it gets more managable. If you see and hear something long enough it becomes comfortable in your mind and soon enough you start accepting it as normal.

 

Example, since the 80s hundreds of movies have shown arabs as terrorists hijacking planes and "killing the infedels" that for the average north American it's as good as a fact. Homosexuality was introduced in the media and at first everyone was disgusted but it was put in their faces day in and day out,in the news, in movies in magazines and now they're "a major part of society"

 

Little terms in the news that are repeated over and over that we never pay attention to but paint an image in our minds "Palestinian gunmen and Isreali soldiers", "coalition forces and issurgents" "minorities" "third world" "developing nations" "fundamentalists"

[Curly]

That's exactly how I see it, they are brainwashing us, but it's a gradual thing. All this propaganda on the telly is over used, people are use to associating Muslims with words like extremist and terrorist.

 

Anyways I thought I'd point something weird, which is totally off the topic.

I found out recently. Apparently homosexuals aren't allowed to give blood, it's one of the guidelines for blood donation. But they aren't so eager to state this in the ever-increasing surge of new blood donation adverts dominating the media at the moment.

[underdog]

I heard that too, but they can't come out and say that. Might "imply" they have some kind of cudur and that would be an attack on a "protected" group in society. NO NO NO can't have that...oh oh look a terrorist :eek:

[Dhagax-Tuur]

Asalaama calaykum

 

Let me add one more fact that has been on the telly recently about being under the big EYE. It is said that each and everyone us is being filmed 300+ times on cameras a day...that is CCTV and likes.

 

So, to doubt you've been watched is plain ********* . I am not sure about the collection of data with stuff like the Oyster card is true, even tho these guys can be pathetic in certain situations (situations like Muslim, Black and Practicing = MALAKUL-MAWT and needs profiling and tracking).

 

Surprised, Wallaahi. Homo blood donation not accepted!? Does anyone know why?

 

Gaalo waa hypocrites. One minute they are introducing them to the mainstream socieity and campaigning for them and next they are saying no to their blood....Subxaanah.

 

Didnt Allah tell us about them...'Faxdaruuhum!' Beware of them!

[Medley of extemporanea]

their blood is not wanted because they all have HIV.

[underdog]

Red Cross Supports Ban on Homosexual Blood Donors

By Lawrence Morahan

CNS Senior Staff Writer

September 15, 2000

 

(CNSNews.com) - The American Red Cross, the nation's largest supplier of blood components, supports the current ban on blood donation by men who have engaged in homosexual sex during the past 24 years.

 

In a 7-6 vote, a Food and Drug Administration panel Thursday voted to maintain a ban on blood donations from homosexual men, even though some members of an FDA special advisory panel called the restrictions discriminatory and outdated.

 

The policy - which says men cannot give blood if they've had sex with another man at any time since 1977 - is intended to minimize the risk of spreading HIV and AIDS.

 

Proposed changes would have allowed men to donate blood if they hadn't had sex with another man in the past five years. Those in favor of changing the policy said new blood tests are better able to detect HIV infection.

 

But a majority of the panel said there's not enough scientific data to warrant a change in blood-donor policy.

 

Dr. Rebecca Haley, interim chief medical officer for the American Red Cross, told the committee the Red Cross did not support changing the ban.

 

"If the Public Health Service could assure us that introducing previously deferred donors into the pool could be accommodated without increasing risk, the American Red Cross would support appropriate actions to do so," she said in a statement provided to CNSNews.com.

 

"The safety of the blood supply - and the patients we ultimately serve - must be our number one priority. This is a public health issue, not a social policy issue," she said.

 

The Red Cross is the country's largest supplier of blood components, serving more than 3,000 hospitals nationwide. Last year, the Red Cross collected 6 million units of blood from 4.5 million people. Every day, 22,000 donors visit one of 400 Red Cross blood donation sites, Red Cross figures show.

 

FDA medical officer Dr. Andrew Dayton estimated there are 62,300 homosexual men who want to donate blood but are prohibited from doing so by the current law. Considering the known prevalence of HIV infection in this population, changing to a five-year deferral policy could potentially introduce 1,246 units of HIV-positive blood into the system to be screened. Of this, two units of HIV-infected blood could get into the nation's blood supply, he said.

 

Introducing theoretically over a thousand HIV-positive units of blood into the system prior to testing would be expected to raise risk, Haley said.

 

"Even considering our layers of safety - from the blood donor record questions to the current tests that screen HIV-positive units out of the blood supply - modifying the [male homosexual]-deferral criterion to five years would result in a small but measurable increase in the possibility that an infectious blood unit might be released," she said.

 

The tests routinely performed on all donated blood to detect HIV and other viruses prevent all but about 10 HIV-infected units from entering the blood supply each year, one expert said. The infected blood that defies the testing causes two to three HIV infections a year, he said.

 

Dr. Adrienne Smith of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, said the current donor ban stigmatizes homosexual men. It is unfair that donors who disclose having engaged in risky heterosexual sexual behavior are only deferred for a year while homosexual men are deferred for a lifetime.

 

But Dr. Jay Epstein, director of the FDA's Office of Blood Research and Review, said data clearly shows that men who engage in high-risk homosexual behavior are much more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to become infected with HIV.

[Curly]

Obviously they can't find out exactly what someones been up to and there are many cases of men breaking guidelines.

 

Here's an interesting article I found on http://lgbta.dsu.org.uk/camp_blo.php.

 

------------------------------------------

National Blood Service (NBS) advertising campaigns state "Do something amazing today - save a life". This is what many gay and bisexual men want to do, yet the guidelines which stop them from doing so don't bother to explain why this is felt necessary. Consequently many, many people in the LGBT community see it as either bigoted or just baffling, and certainly offensive. Gay and bisexual men feel that a respected government organisation is judging them all to have "dirty blood" - especially by lumping them with drug users and prostitutes.

This failure to communicate is entirely unnecessary. A good example of good practice in other national blood services is the Canadian service, who state:

 

"All men who have had sex with another man since 1977 are permanently deferred. This is based on current scientific knowledge and statistical information that shows that men who've had sex with other men are at greater risk of HIV/AIDS than other people."

 

We feel that a slight change to the guidelines, including a similar statement to the one above, and preferably also clearly explaining the statistical evidence supporting the ban, would help to overcome the current widely held suspicion of institutional homophobia. This suspicion was hardly helped by the reply last year by the NBS Chair to a Pink Paper reader who asked if he was evil for lying to the NBS about his sexuality: "The answer is yes, he is evil and also a liar."

No lesser a source than the NBS Communications Manager has since admitted, "I don't think that we've been particularly good at communicating; it's a sensitive issue, which needs to be handled in a sensitive manner."

The other problem with the current guidelines is that by not defining 'sex with another man' (which is understood very differently by different gay and bisexual men), the NBS is failing even to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk sexual practices. In fact, the guidelines were officially changed in March 2002, so that the relevant entries now read:

- You must never give blood if you are a man who has ever had oral or anal sex with another man, even if you used a condom or other protective.

- You should not give blood for at least 12 months after sex (even if you used a condom or other protective) with (if you are a woman) a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man.

...which is better, but appallingly www.blood.co.uk has not been updated with these new guidelines a whole year later.

-------------------------------------------

[PoEtiC-MisKiiNad]

LOL@barweeqo....

well said...i was sooo close to missing the point....trying to figure out who heblaayo was..fuuny eh!!....i try

anyways i re-read wha u wrote and got the point.."watch the eye of the somali community" and 4Get the others(think of them as weersho's..)

[Capital Z]

finally someone talks about the truth