so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-22-2003, 04:13 PM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Klaus,

"After that the priority solving the Iraq problem werent verry high. Most people in the world forgot Saddam Hussein until the US government told them that hi WMDs are a danger for the US and he is linked to Ossama Bin Laden."

The priority was still high and the US worked to get UN inspectors back into Iraq without any success. Kosovo war happened in the Spring of 1999, and then 2000 was an election year, so despite the efforts to get inspectors back in Iraq, no one was ready to deploy large numbers of US troops to do that. WMDs in possession by Saddam were declared a danger in March of 1991 to the world which is why Saddam was forced to give them up.


"So it is approx. 1/3rd of the US Army in Iraq? In that situation would it be possible to send the military to Korea? Or how many of the brigades should stay at home for defending the country? (not that i think that canada or mexico will invade the US..)"

The US army is currently capable of conducting two wars at the same time in both Korea and the middle east. If war were to break out in Korea suddenly, the USA already has one army division stationed there and two other divisions that would deploy from Alaska and Hawaii.

Lets not forget the US Marine Corp. The US Marines have one division in southern Iraq that my friends are serving in. They have one more division back in the USA and another stationed in Japan that could be deployed to Korea or Tawain depending on what is needed.

In addition, there are over 40 COMBAT brigades in the US Army National Guard and Reserve that can be called up if needed.
There is one Marine Division in the Marine Reserve.


"What do you think about the idea that Turkish troops will support US troops in Iraq now? (i guess a few weeks ago we had the same opinion "bad idea")"

I don't want Turkish Troops in Iraq. If they serve in the south where the Shia are and it is far from the Turkish border, it might be ok, but if its in the North where the Kurds are, it could get ugly.

"As she came home today...
...what's your opinion in the "Jessica Lynch rescue show"?
I've heared that the US military said that her wounds were from a car accident, not from shootings"

"Do you think the things we saw on TV were "based on a true story" or did we see the true story?"

Its great she is home. Whether her wounds were from a shooting or a car accident caused by an RPG rocket is irrelevant. The US military mounted an operation to bring Jessica Lynch out of the hospital in Nasaryia. Nasaryia was the most dangerous place for US troops during the war. A raid or ambush could happen at any time and the military appropriately sent a well armed squad to insure she was safely moved from the Hospital to a secure US Army location.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 04:26 PM   #137
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:54 AM
Sting:
So it will be 3 wars.. or is Afghanistan over (afik the goal was to hunt Ossama Bin Laden)? So 3 wars because of the international troops in Afghanistan or possibly 4 wars if there will be international troops in Iraq?

Anyway, i'm glad the article is wrong in that point (also i think he mentions some interesting things in the other points)

I agree with your opinion in the "Turkey-question" i guess even in the south it could be tricky - chances are high that Turkey troops try to make some special operations in the north and Kurds will come to the south for revenge (for what has bin done to them for years).

I also agree that its great that she is home - and besides she lost some memory she seems to be ok again. I'm really glad about that.
But still it's a question about credibility of the Pentagon - IF the rescue mission was faked they fooled the American citizens just to get the support for war.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-22-2003, 04:36 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Klaus,

There is about as much evidence of UFO's by farmer Browns barn as there is evidence that a rescue mission was faked. The US military is the most credible organization on the planet.

"So it will be 3 wars.. or is Afghanistan over (afik the goal was to hunt Ossama Bin Laden)? So 3 wars because of the international troops in Afghanistan or possibly 4 wars if there will be international troops in Iraq?"

Depends on your definition of war. There US troops at work in Afghanistan, a full brigade of the 82nd Airborne division is there. The operation in Afghanistan though is more of a CIA-FBI hunt though. US troops are currently deployed in Iraq rebuilding the country and capturing or killing the last remnents of Saddam's regime. If there was a problem in Korea that would be a third area of conflict.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-23-2003, 03:49 AM   #139
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:54 AM
Sting:
I think the US Army is more trustworthy than the US Government - and the US Armys (2 weeks ago) description of the wounds fit to the things the Iraqi M.D.s said, not to the version of the US Government - thats where i started to think it might be a faked story.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-24-2003, 06:14 AM   #140
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:54 AM
Since they found a document where the CIA warned on 5.Oct. 02 Michael Gerson (Speechwriter) and after there was no response another document at 6. Oct 02 directly to Mr. Hadley (America's deputy national security adviser who reports Mrs. Rice)

Quote:
BBC News:
Mr Hadley said the Central Intelligence Agency director, George Tenet, had warned him that the intelligence was suspect, and had earlier asked him to remove similar language from an October speech by the president, Reuters news agency reported.
The lie is getting closer to the center of the Power. Didn't they tell us a few days ago it was just the CIAs fault? Mr George Tenet didn't report?

Let's see which documents they can find next weekend

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-28-2003, 05:05 AM   #141
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:54 AM
Reuters:

Quote:

Billionaire's ads challenge U.S. case for Iraq war
Fri Jul 25, 7:45 PM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Billionaire philanthropist George Soros is running full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers on Sunday challenging the honesty of the Bush administration's case for waging war in Iraq.

The ads in The New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Houston Chronicle, are titled, "When the nation goes to war, the people deserve the truth."

A dozen statements made by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making the case for war are reprinted and described as either exaggerated or false.

The statements center on claims about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and large quantities of poison gasses.

The Hungarian-born Soros, 72, emigrated to the United States from Britain in 1956 and built a fortune as a financier. He is founder of a network of philanthropic organizations active in more than 50 countries that focus on education, public health, human rights and economic reform.

The ads, estimated to cost about $185,000, were co-sponsored by U.S. philanthropists Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman.

"Both George Soros and Lewis Cullman have been deeply concerned about the deception used to justify the war in Iraq," said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros.

"They believe their fellow citizens should also be concerned and took out these ads to move them to action."

Bush has defended the case for war, saying he is confident that weapons of mass destruction will eventually be found in Iraq and that criticism of intelligence about Iraq's military capabilities amounts to quibbling.

Public opinion on the issue is closely divided, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released this week. It showed U.S. voters believed the administration did not intentionally exaggerate evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons by 50 to 44 percent with a 3 percent margin of error.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-28-2003, 03:25 PM   #142
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:54 PM
I read this today at TomPaine.com. Just a little white lie to protect his and Cheney's oil buddies.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466
Operation Oil Immunity
Steve Kretzmann and Jim Vallette are analysts with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies.

"The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. "

This is much the same way Africa debt was created.

"In the creation and expected implementation of this Development Fund for Iraq, one finds the fingerprints of the global economic structural adjustment that has attracted so much protest in recent years. World Bank and IMF programs, backed by the rigged rules of the World Trade Organization, have imposed dramatic financial restructuring upon much of the world. Developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful Northern corporations. This paradigm cloaks corporate welfare and neocolonialism in terms of "poverty alleviation," and now in Iraq as "humanitarian assistance."

New debt for Iraq will accrue through the very program that President Bush pledged would "benefit the people of Iraq." The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, will apparently be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit and direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq. Besides financing reconstruction projects, some of the funds will also be used as collateral for projects approved by the U.S. Export-Import Bank (ExIm), whose mission is not development or poverty alleviation, but rather the creation of U.S. jobs and the promotion of American business abroad."

The kicker is what executive order contains.

"Executive Order 13303 decrees that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law. "

And they said it wasn't about OIL.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 07-28-2003, 04:39 PM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:54 PM






http://www.wedeservethetruth.com/
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 06:31 PM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:54 PM

"I feel confident that more than 100 activities on the part of al Qaeda have been disrupted and interrupted around the world," Ashcroft said



He claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party.

McCarthy's first years in the Senate were unimpressive. People also started coming forward claiming that he had lied about his war record. Another problem for McCarthy was that he was being investigated for tax offences and for taking bribes from the Pepsi-Cola Company. In May, 1950, afraid that he would be defeated in the next election, McCarthy held a meeting with some of his closest advisers and asked for suggestions on how he could retain his seat. Edmund Walsh, a Roman Catholics priest, came up with the idea that he should begin a campaign against communist subversives working in the Democratic administration.

McCarthy thought this was a great idea and at Wheeling on 9th February, 1950, he made a speech where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2003, 08:58 PM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Ugh. This is scary. It doesn't look good.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 02:34 AM   #146
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 04:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

George " " Bush
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 10:40 AM   #147
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:54 AM
Scarletwine/TylerDurden: yeah an "excelent" lession in democracy
I guess the iraqi people won't cheer if they hear that laws, they will believe that this is some modern form of colonialisation
Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 05:31 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
I read this today at TomPaine.com. Just a little white lie to protect his and Cheney's oil buddies.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466
Operation Oil Immunity
Steve Kretzmann and Jim Vallette are analysts with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies.

"The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil. "

This is much the same way Africa debt was created.
And it seems like now the US has the opportunity to thwart another Africa from happening. If Bush really cared about the Iraqi people this bs wouldn't be happening. And the US can cut corners and not help Africa as much as it should- yet we have an opportunity to refuse to let Iraq fall into the same black void..... let's all pray that the administration puts these people first (it makes me ache to say that, knowing in my heart that's not this administrations agenda)...
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 02:48 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
so they blatantly lie and you dont care
if this is true, and i hope it is not.





Report: Marines dropped devices similar to Napalm on Iraqi troops
The Associated Press

Last Updated 11:18 a.m. PDT Tuesday, August 5, 2003
SAN DIEGO (AP) - Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders say they dropped firebombs similar to napalm on Iraqi troops earlier this year, according to a report published Tuesday.
The Marines say that in March, U.S. warplanes dropped dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River in central Iraq to clear the way for troops headed to Baghdad.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," Alles added.

He could not provide estimates of Iraqi casualties.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles. "It has a big psychological effect."

The firebombs were used again in April against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, the Marines said. There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen denied that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago. Napalm, a thick, burning combination of polystyrene, gasoline and benzene, was used against people and villages in Vietnam. Its use drew widespread criticism.

The newspaper said the spokesmen were apparently drawing a distinction between the terms firebomb and napalm.

The Marines dropped "Mark 77 firebombs," which use kerosene-based jet fuel and a smaller concentration of benzene. Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily acknowledged the incendiary devices were "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons, but said they had less of an impact on the environment.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 09:04 PM   #150
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Feep, I read the same report today.

Same article as you just longer.

I did a search on this subject and the US swore it didn't have any napalm, course now they call it firebombs.

Results are ' remarkably similar' to using napalm

By James W. Crawley
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 5, 2003

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn't say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.

The bombing campaign helped clear the path for the Marines' race to Baghdad.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen disputed reports that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.

Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms "firebomb" and "napalm." If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use.

What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons.

Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.

Hundreds of partially loaded Mark 77 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas, Marine Corps officials said. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.com, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

"That's clearly Orwellian," he added.

Developed during World War II and dropped on troops and Japanese cities, incendiary bombs have been used by American forces in nearly every conflict since. Their use became controversial during the Vietnam War when U.S. and South Vietnamese aircraft dropped millions of pounds of napalm. Its effects were shown in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of Vietnamese children running from their burned village.

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

During a recent interview about the bombing campaign in Iraq, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Miramar pilots familiar with the bombing missions pointed to at least two locations where firebombs were dropped.

Before the Marines crossed the Saddam Canal in central Iraq, jets dropped several firebombs on enemy positions near a bridge that would become the Marines' main crossing point on the road toward Numaniyah, a key town 40 miles from Baghdad.

Next, the bombs were used against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, in early April.

There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

Two embedded journalists reported what they described as napalm being dropped on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill overlooking the Kuwait border.

Reporters for CNN and the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald were told by unnamed Marine officers that aircraft dropped napalm on the Iraqi position, which was adjacent to one of the Marines' main invasion routes.

Their reports were disputed by several Pentagon spokesmen who said no such bombs were used nor did the United States have any napalm weapons.

The Pentagon destroyed its stockpile of napalm canisters, which had been stored near Camp Pendleton at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, in April 2001.

Yesterday military spokesmen described what they see as the distinction between the two types of incendiary bombs. They said mixture used in modern firebombs is a less harmful mixture than Vietnam War-era napalm.

"This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

He added, "many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark 77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar."

In the e-mail, Daily also acknowledged that firebombs were dropped near Safwan Hill.

Alles, who oversaw the Safwan bombing raid, said 18 one-ton satellite-guided bombs, but no incendiary bombs, were dropped on the site.

Military experts say incendiary bombs can be an effective weapon in certain situations.

Firebombs are useful against dug-in troops and light vehicles, said GlobalSecurity's Pike.

"I used it routinely in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, now a prominent defense analyst. "I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon."

And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."

Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com