So, some people interpret Nostradamus’ prophecy that the 3rd WW would originate from the mid-east by the guy in a purple turban. There were rumours, in various history media, that the guy was Saddam. Now, what I find funny is that the guy who’s “started” all this fun stuff is no where to be found. Yet, new countries are being targeted.

In today’s bombing, George I of the US and Tony Blair, used it to justify why they attacked in the first place. My question to them, is can they prove that these attacks would have happened whether they attacked or not? My voice, is that the attack provoked these attacks (please keep in mind that those who are perpetrating these attacks are not playing by “gentleman’s rule of war”).

Personally, I’d throw out this concept of a gentleman’s war, geneva accords or no. I think trying to put a kinder face on the concept of war is a joke. War has no rules, and it has no form. The only way either comes into existance is by the agreement of both sides to abide by common rules. Our “opponent” in this war has shown itself to not agree to the common rules, we are not taking a “high” road by holding to those rules. Instead, I think we’re trying to perpetuate some “martyr complex” with it. Screw it, I think we should throw out the book.