Introduction

There is an old children's joke that goes something like this.

Q. - What is black and white and red (read) all over ?

A. - A newspaper ! (simply by substituting the word "read" for "red")

OK., so what's all the big deal, very funny ha ha, heard it all before. True enough, but the very basic point that I am using here is to show that even at an early age, we can start to analyse and evaluate the information given to us in conjunction with the data stored in our minds. In order to answer the joke above, it is necessary to avoid the trap of falling into assuming the obvious, i.e. the word "red" (colour), and instead replace it with the similar sounding word "read" (to read). Thus, by training ourselves to think in a multi-dimensional environment, we allow ourselves to observe not just what we can see in front of us (i.e. the obvious), but now that of which we can not see (i.e. the abstract), which can often be of far more value to us.

To see or not to see, that is the question ?

During the Second World War, British forces in the western desert employed the services of a well-known magician by the name of Jasper Maskelyne. His incredible accomplishments for the Allies included no less than fooling the Axis forces into: -

· bombing the wrong port of Alexandria, Egypt

· making the Suez Canal disappear

· constructing a false oil pipeline in the southern area of the El Alamein battle front, and using miniature vehicles to distort size (Operation Bertram)

· and turning tanks into transport lorries to help trick the Axis commanders that the main Allied attack would come further in the south

All this was achieved to great effect, but quite ingeniously, simply by making use of the way that the mind often assumes what it believes to be an object in a particular position. Our brains have become "tuned" in to what we expect to be there, and that is what politicians and others seeking power capitalize upon. Thus the need for us to become lateral thinkers, that is if we are to keep our independence of minds, and avoid becoming little more than pawns in the hands of a minority clique.

To believe or not to believe, that is the question ?

In recent times, much has been said about the so-called weapons of mass destruction (wmd for short), allegedly held in breach of U.N. resolutions by the ex-dictator of Iraq, Suddam Hussein. For most people, they do not exist because no tangible evidence has been found by the Allies since they liberated/occupied (take your own choice please - this website is non-partisan) that country back in 2003. However, what if they were actually abstract. Let us examine the possibilities - laterally of course !

· Tangible - the infamous Scud missiles, were launched by Saddam Hussein against Israeli population centres and American forces in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, in 1991. It was basically an improved version of theV2 rocket, developed by Werner von Braun for Hitler in the latter stages of World War Two, and launched with devastating effect against the cities of London and Antwerp in 1944/5. It was propelled into its trajectory by an alcohol (a mixture of 75% ethyl alcohol and 25% water), and liquid oxygen fuel. The steam turbine that delivered these two liquids into the thrust chamber, ran on two auxiliary fuels, namely hydrogen peroxide (80%) and a mixture of sodium permanganate with water (67% to 33% ratio). Although not a chemist, I do not think that I would be wrong in assuming that most of the aforementioned liquids could be found in many modern general hospitals, and probably purchased quite legitimately in your local high street, or on the internet. The 45 minute warning for arming these wmd, that Prime Minister Blair informed the British Houses of Parliament about just before the war, was most probably correct, as it took the Germans about the same time to prepare the V2 (not much longer, or the liquid oxygen could freeze the valves in the rocket assembly). As for a chemical warhead, the most likely would be Sarin, which was originally developed by Germany in 1938 as a pesticide. It is similar to certain kinds of pesticides (insect killers) called organophosphates, but it is far more deadly. So, all items are to be found in your local hospital and/or high street, and all Saddam Hussein had to do was hide the rocket casings, which in a country the size of Iraq can surely not be that difficult ? No wonder then that Allied forces could not find any trace of wmd - but then, were they tangibly there at all by 2003 ?

· Abstract - imagine yourself for one moment in the position of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Question - what is even more worrying to you than the threat of military action by the U.S. led coalition for having wmd. Answer - NOT having wmd. Why ? - well, lets just analyse the situation here for a moment. S.H. has quite a fearsome reputation in the Middle East as a ruthless leader. From gassing his own people in Halabja (March 1988 - killing 5,000/15,000 Kurds depending on sources), to making war against Iran (1980-88 with an estimated 1.5 million casualties for Iran alone, and $350 Billion in total damages). Not a man to be taken lightly. Question - why did S.H. go out of his way to "play cat and mouse games" with the U.N. appointed chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, and so leave the way open for possible military action against him by the U.S. and their allies ? Answer - because (maybe) he was more worried that Mr Blix would verify that S.H. indeed had NO wmd. Thus, at a stroke, Iraq would lose its most potent defence, i.e. the threat of chemical retaliation, against any would-be attackers. Therefore, by 2003, the wmd were abstract only ?

This website is being developed and run to encourage like minded people to think laterally; through, in and around the five experienced dimensions. By keeping away from emotional and arousing argument, so often used by politicians to such great effect, I hope to engage the reader in a logical dichotomy of current events, not defiled by any pre-determined prognosis. Unlike many of the media outlets, which sadly expound much bigoted, biased, codswallop (let's call it b.b.c. (lower case) for brevity) in its reporting, I shall only write about ALL the facts (where available) on the topics under discussion. The late William Blake wrote, " a truth that's told with bad intent, beatsall the lies you can invent". In my opinion, this is sadly to be seen, regretfully too often the case and all too prevalent in our "respected" media. For example, why does the B.B.C. (upper case) always refer to both the Gaza Strip and West Bank as being occupied lands since June 1967 (Six Day War)? These two territories were both clearly occupied militarily by, respectively, the Egyptian and Jordanian armies from 1948 to 1967, in clear breach of the U.N. resolution (November 1947) that gave the Palestinian people the right to their own homeland. Indeed the Jordanians actually annexed the West Bank, again in clear violation of U.N. Resolution 181 (II). Why does the B.B.C. take this apparent partisan stance on Palestine ? Does it (worryingly) apply this approach in its reports on other world conflicts, international and domestic matters ? I am not picking specifically on the B.B.C., nor indeed on other media outlets, and I am not using this website to take sides on the Middle-East conflicts, nor indeed any other. I am just pointing out that people need to be aware that they might not always be in receipt of ALL the relevant facts when they pick up their newspaper, or switch on their television/radio for the news. Perhaps the best way to finish this introduction, is to remind readers of the tale of The Emperors New Suit, by Hans Christian Anderson (1837). Do not be afraid in questioning the "accepted" line on issues. Some people say that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction, but, perhaps conversely, sometimes the "truth" that you are constantly being "drip fed" by the politicians and media, is indeed fiction itself !