It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:45 AM

As of lately Finnish foreign policy towards Russia has turned more hostile, and Russian feelings about Finland are turning more hostile. Talks about Nato are advancing and this makes me very worried, because Russia is our neighbour and we would be used as a buffer country if selected into nato. Here are somethings i have noticed:

Current prime minister Matti Vanhanen came to power through scandal, where the old prime minister was caught lying. HE WAS NOT ELECTED! He also attended bildenberg group meeting in 2006, there has been an image in net as proof. I will try to find it.

Also attending this meeting was editor of Helsingin Sanomat, the biggest news paper in Finland. This newspaper has become our new propaganda machine, and is owned by freemason Aatos Erkko.

Now the plot thickens, the new foreign minister Alexander Stubb came to power also through scandal, this time the old foreign minister Kanerva was caught by sending normal sex text messages. Nothing illegal just your avarage sex scandal, he was forced to resign. Now this Alexander Stubb has affected our foreign policy in very bad way though georgia crisis. Stubb is clearly very hostile towards russia and is trying to find all possible ways to tick them off, like trying to get us in to Nato.

Thank god we have Tarja Halonen (our president), she is known to look after our russian relationships. Now what i'm feeling is this is not all just luck, there is some sort of agenda here. Also, our president has very little power to affect things.

There was this horrible school shooting somedays back, where student shot and killed 10 people. After the news Matti Vanhanen said they are considering banning all guns from citizens (We have 1.6 million guns and around 5 million people.). Other suggestions include locking all weapons in shooting range, so people cannot take them home. This is starting to sound like disarming of the people, and i find it very scary, specially when Matti Vanhanen said this. Personally i don't own a gun, and will never get one. I would rather die than take other persons life.

So what do we have now:

- Helsingin Sanomat as a propaganda machine. Owned by a known free mason Aatos Erkko, he is also the riches man in Finland.
- None elected Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, that attended Bildeberg group meeting in 2006.
- None elected Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, that is cleary hostile towards Russia.
- Suggestions to ban all guns from citizens, or lock them all in a shooting range where goverment can pick them up if needed.

I hope that other people who live in Finland would contribute to this thread, if they have any other information that they find worrying.

Let's hope i'm wrong, i read so much negative and crazy theories on the net, that i hope it has not clouded my judgement.


posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:01 AM
I do not have a good knowledge of Matti Vanhanen and Alexander Stubb so I wouldn't know their intensions for sure. But forcing to resign after couple of SMS's including sexy thoughs is rather ridiculous if you do your job well.

I am very worried the goverment people are even thinking something like banning the guns from individuals forcing them to leave the guns to the shooting range. I mean, get real. We have hundred times more forests and plain nature than cities, towns and villages especially in northern Finland. You could have a shootin range in the middle of nowhere and the nearest village would be as close as 70 kilometers. Even in towns, the shooting ranges are not always in some buildings; they can be far away from town again in the middle of nowhere.

Now how could anyone be controlling and monitoring these areas where all the registered guns would be stored? The police? Give me a break. Finnish police force are very weak. In normal saturdaynight you can find yourself in the situation where you are witnessing a burglary but the lady in the phone says "sorry we don't have free units at the moment please wait".

We don't even need goverment to make this scenario scary. Even if they want to control the guns, we have enough sick people amongst us who might go and steal the guns. Imagine the situation; some wacko-head having 30 registered handguns. Let the cat'n mouse game begin.

I don't know where are we going, but I'm sure the future is not so bright if we keep going this way. BUT, it seems that the actual revolution is starting to begin. Different individuals are criticizing these maniac ideas. And it's a start!

p.s. Are you aware about the deal called Prüm? It's allowing other countries police forces and their hardware to be transfred to desired country if they seem to have a bigger crisis. And the targeted country cannot deny the help of other country without a very very good explanation.

That is a very big step towards to controlled society we all are afraid of. Even here in Finland :/ I also read the constitutional law of EU were written behind closed doors without having the vote of citizens.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:10 PM
Prüm Treaty are: Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Austria.

The aim of the Treaty is to help the signatories improve information-sharing for the purpose of preventing and combating crime in three fields, all of which are covered by provisions of EU Treaty: terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration.

However, Prüm breaks new grounds in cooperation in the area of internal security as it provides the signatories with certain rights of access to DNA only in repressive context (prosecution of crime), fingerprint data, personal and non-personal data, as well as vehicle registration data in both preventive and repressive context.

Further, the Treaty of Prüm increases law enforcement by allowing for ‘joint patrols and other operations in which designated officers or other officials […] from other contracting Parties participate in operations within a Contracting Party’s territory.’ In addition, ‘In urgent situation, officers from one Contracting Party may, without another Contracting Party’s prior consent, cross the border between the two so that, within an area of the other Contracting Party’s territory close to the border […] they can take any provisional measures necessary to avert imminent danger to the integrity of individuals.’ [5]

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 08:43 PM
This thread is of interest to me, as I used to live in Finland, and my sister is in the military there right now.

Hails from Canada.

top topics

log in