Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Next > | Last >
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Bin Laden [Re: GazzBut]
    #14410276 - 05/06/11 01:21 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
By the way Phred, lets say the unicef report can be discredited (not a proven fact by the way) What do you think would be the accurate figure? Or do you deny anybody died as a direct result of sanctions? Is there an acceptable number of dead children that makes the use of sanctions ok?



Sanctions would never have existed if Saddam hadn't been a genocidal criminal.  It was fully within his power to end them.  Why do you enable genocidal murderers?

And yes, that 500,000 is total bullshit.  As has been shown several times.  Liar.  Liar who supports genocidal murderers.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 19 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: GazzBut]
    #14410349 - 05/06/11 01:38 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Twisting around what other people have said to turn it into a means of defeating their position even though the conclusion reached is entirely wrong and has no basis in fact.




GazzBut, there are few posters in this forum more strident in their condemnation of the regime change effected in Iraq in 2003 than yourself. Your posting history amply demonstrates this. I am doing no "twisting around" here - logic dictates that one who opposes regime change prefers the existing regime.

Note I don't say you believe Hussein's Ba'athist iraq was ideal, or that you approved of his regime, I merely accurately note that every post you ever made on the subject indicated unmistakably that you thought the alternative chosen by the coalition - forcefully remove Hussein and his heirs from power - was worse. In other words, your preference faced with a binary choice was to go with Hussein remaining in charge. "Preference" is not a synonym for "approval", Gazzbut.





Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Phred]
    #14410670 - 05/06/11 02:43 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

most of you are very gullible and dont know what f is going on


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOoBYCoO
One grow down, a million to go!!
Male


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 8,120
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 4 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: zzripz]
    #14410936 - 05/06/11 03:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zzripz said:
most of you are very gullible and dont know what f is going on



....that's it?  :mypleasure:  Please enlighten us then.  You can't just make a statement like that w/ no supportive reasoning.  Gullible might not be the best word.  I think people have a set of preconceived notions when dealing w/ these issues.  These notions are molded over our lifetimes by our upbringing, schooling, religion, etc. so when we're faced w/ shit like this we tend to only hear what we want to and forget/disregard the rest.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Bin Laden [Re: OoBYCoO]
    #14411076 - 05/06/11 04:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

well it is like being in Nazi Germany when you can see quite clearly that Hitler is totally off his rocker insane, as are his henchmen, and their whole dream, and yet you are faced with thousands and thousands of people lost in a dream. Glazed eyes, doing funny moves, and slutes, crying women throwing flowers at these crazed men. All the media not questioning what is going on.

What do you do in such a situation?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOoBYCoO
One grow down, a million to go!!
Male


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 8,120
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 4 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: zzripz]
    #14411214 - 05/06/11 04:37 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well in that particular example it was either conform and get w/ the program or die.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNot Quite Social
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 07/16/10
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Midwest
Re: Bin Laden [Re: OoBYCoO]
    #14411921 - 05/06/11 07:04 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Just so there's no confusion about what happened:

OBL was under house arrest in the Pakistani Army's backyard (obviously a prison), and that was OK with the US for a while until it became more useful, politically, to dramatically kill him--you know, with everybody getting sick of the never-ending wars, Goldstein* had outlived his usefullness.  US & Pakistan intelligence agencies colluded all along, and continue to collude to spin the story to their best political advantage without hurting their partnership at all in reality, and only a little in the fictitious mainstream press.

So, to recap, the Navy Seals broke into a Pakistani prison to kill a rogue CIA agent and one-time Saudi prince who was really, at the time, just a sitting duck.  Oops, they also killed some prison guards and bin Laden family members.  (Didn't they just kill somebody's son and grandkids in Libya?)  All's well that ends well.  What a beautiful story.  The End.

*Goldstein--see 1984 by George Orwell (for those of you who barely graduated high school).


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Not Quite Social]
    #14411974 - 05/06/11 07:16 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

*Goldstein--see 1984 by George Orwell (for those of you who barely graduated high school).




Give me a break, spare us your patronization.  You are just spouting unsubstantiated bullshit here.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNot Quite Social
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 07/16/10
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Midwest
Re: Bin Laden [Re: DieCommie]
    #14412037 - 05/06/11 07:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

It might seem that way to a victim of "patronization".


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


Edited by Not Quite Social (05/06/11 07:30 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: zzripz]
    #14412333 - 05/06/11 08:31 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

> well it is like being in Nazi Germany

Goodwin scores again.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOoBYCoO
One grow down, a million to go!!
Male


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 8,120
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 4 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Seuss]
    #14413071 - 05/06/11 11:07 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

BBC: The Final Report Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive: A look at how Osama bin Laden eluded would-be captors during the battle at Tora Bora in late 2001.

http://www.putlocker.com/file/EC56EBBECD341BEC#


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Bin Laden [Re: GazzBut]
    #14413259 - 05/07/11 12:05 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Not Quite Social said:
Just so there's no confusion about what happened:

OBL was under house arrest in the Pakistani Army's backyard (obviously a prison), and that was OK with the US for a while until it became more useful, politically, to dramatically kill him--you know, with everybody getting sick of the never-ending wars, Goldstein* had outlived his usefullness.  US & Pakistan intelligence agencies colluded all along, and continue to collude to spin the story to their best political advantage without hurting their partnership at all in reality, and only a little in the fictitious mainstream press.

So, to recap, the Navy Seals broke into a Pakistani prison to kill a rogue CIA agent and one-time Saudi prince who was really, at the time, just a sitting duck.  Oops, they also killed some prison guards and bin Laden family members.  (Didn't they just kill somebody's son and grandkids in Libya?)  All's well that ends well.  What a beautiful story.  The End.

*Goldstein--see 1984 by George Orwell (for those of you who barely graduated high school).





Nice story.  Now, for those of us who haven't graduated high school, please explain the basis for these assertions?

People seem to say Osama was a CIA agent/creation or whatever all the time, but I've never heard any legitimate justification for that.  It seems just a bunch of garbage made up to justify people's beliefs.  If you have any legitimate evidence of this being the case, you'd be the first.  (I predict equivocation)

Quote:

OoBYCoO said:
Let's face it, every world super power throught history: the Roman Empire, Egypt, the Brits w/ there colonies, the Spaniards w/ the Inquistion, Gangus Kahn and his crew, for fucks sake the Vatican w/ the crusades all conduct business in this manner.

So you can't single out the U.S. b/c I'm pretty sure if it was you're country that was the superpower and not ours, they'd be imposing their will on the world!





How exactly is the US similar to any of those historical entities?  This sounds disconcertingly like the 'imperlialism' talk people like to use against the US, but they don't seem to have any decent argument/facts for that claim either.  How is the US a crusader akin to those others?  It seems that any definition of such would render it meaningless in its expansiveness.

Quote:

GazzBut said:
By the way Phred, lets say the unicef report can be discredited (not a proven fact by the way) What do you think would be the accurate figure? Or do you deny anybody died as a direct result of sanctions? Is there an acceptable number of dead children that makes the use of sanctions ok?




How is that an honest question?  Nobody was "spending" children's lives or trading them in such a manner as this phrasing suggests- the proximate cause of their deaths was the regime, saddam making a point and looking after himself.

I don't understand how you justify attributing moral responsiblity for (someone- US for sure) to those enfocing sanctions legally applied (at least you've made no argument contrary and it seemed legal- at least prima facia) to the regime that specifically provided a mechnism for food and medicine to be imported. 

There was nothing prohibiting the people from eating, from getting food, nor from food being exported to Iraq.  Yes, when governments steal property and wealth from the people and use it for their own benefit, people often starve.  That Saddam refused to feed his people or provide medicine in any decent fasion, and used this decision as a political point, seems to provide a pretty clear indication of who is to blame. 

Is there reasonable assurance that the situation would have largely improved had the sanctions been eliminated?  (without Saddam letting up on his stupid policies crippling the economy, just to make a political point)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
Re: Bin Laden [Re: johnm214]
    #14413379 - 05/07/11 12:42 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

don't understand how you justify attributing moral responsiblity for (someone- US for sure) to those enfocing sanctions legally applied (at least you've made no argument contrary and it seemed legal- at least prima facia) to the regime that specifically provided a mechnism for food and medicine to be imported. 





Legally applied? I love the way you think that just because something is deigned "legal" by a bunch of corrupt fucks then it is ok.

I dont understand how you fail to see that we could have applied much different sanctions that would not have basically targeted the civilian population while having little real effect on Saddam. What exactly were we trying to achieve?

Do you seriously believe the "Official" line on this entire matter? Do you really think our aims and objectives were exactly as stated and it was just a coincidence that Iraq happend to be sitting on a fuck load of oil? Wakey fucking wakey.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOoBYCoO
One grow down, a million to go!!
Male


Registered: 08/18/10
Posts: 8,120
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 10 years, 4 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: johnm214]
    #14413384 - 05/07/11 12:45 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

What the hell are you talking about John?  I'm an American and support it.  I think you need to look at that post IN CONTEXT to the discussion at that time.  I don't know how you came to your conclusions about what you thought I meant but you are grasping at thin air.... especially when you're trying to argue w/ someone who is PRO-US.  :flowstone:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
Re: Bin Laden [Re: zappaisgod]
    #14413387 - 05/07/11 12:46 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

  Why do you enable genocidal murderers?




This quote made me laugh out loud. So I take it you have some fucked up logic to explain why it was ok to arm the guy to the teeth in the 80's?


Quote:

And yes, that 500,000 is total bullshit.  As has been shown several times.  Liar.  Liar who supports genocidal murderers.




Even if the 500,00 figure is wrong the fact remains that hundreds of thousands of children are reported to have died as a direct result of sanctions. I dont care how you look at it, its wrong.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 27 days, 22 hours
Re: Bin Laden [Re: Phred]
    #14413425 - 05/07/11 01:02 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

I am doing no "twisting around" here - logic dictates that one who opposes regime change prefers the existing regime.





You said I supported Saddam's regime. I have never supported Saddam's regime. Just because I oppose violent regime change to plunder oil reserves, under the guise of some humanitarian crusade or to secure our "safety" does not mean I have to support the regime that is being attacked.

Quote:

Note I don't say you believe Hussein's Ba'athist iraq was ideal, or that you approved of his regime, I merely accurately note that every post you ever made on the subject indicated unmistakably that you thought the alternative chosen by the coalition - forcefully remove Hussein and his heirs from power - was worse. In other words, your preference faced with a binary choice was to go with Hussein remaining in charge. "Preference" is not a synonym for "approval", Gazzbut.




Heres where the problem lies. You believe the end justifies the means regardless of the motives that caused the action do you not? (Im sure we had this conversation a long time ago but I doubt whether I could find it) So you would say, even if we were after the oil removing Saddam is preferable to having him there so it is a good thing.

My take is that our motives were corrupt and our government has lied to us systematically about these motives. As for whether the average Iraqi is better off? At the moment I think we can safely say a definite no. The county is in turmoil and thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians have died as a direct result of our actions.

The fact also remains that whatever else Saddam may have done, prior to gulf war I the Iraqi's had a relatively good health care system and standard of living in comparison to many other dictatorial regimes who also committed many human rights violations but didnt happen to be sitting on massive oil reserves.

If we had simply not got involved in the way we have who is to say that a peoples revolution would not have taken place the same as we have seen in Egypt or Tunisia. Who is to say Saddam would not have died of natural causes making such a revolution much more plausible.

If our real aim was to liberate the Iraqi people and make the world safer for ourselves then I think it is clear that we probably could have made a better job of this by not getting involved in the way we have. Of course, I dont believe this was the aim for a single millisecond . It has always been about the oil and its a fucking disgrace.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: Bin Laden [Re: GazzBut]
    #14413622 - 05/07/11 02:32 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Oh My Giddy Aunt!!!!!!
Listen up: OBAMA OOOPS I MEAN OSAMA DIED YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU GET IT??


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 19 days
Re: Bin Laden [Re: GazzBut]
    #14413832 - 05/07/11 04:48 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

You said I supported Saddam's regime.




But that's the whole point, my dear GazzBut, I didn't say that.

This is one of the reasons you believe the ridiculous things you do, Gazz. Perhaps the biggest reason, even - your reading comprehension has always been decidedly sub-par. Your innate prejudices prevent you from reading what is actually written and instead lead you to "find" confirmation for whatever you want to believe. Similarly, just as I never said you supported Saddam's regime, the people who wrote the UNICEF report that so many love to misinterpret never said the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. In fact, they went out of their way to insist that their work not be misinterpreted in such a manner.

To repeat myself (not that it will make any difference to you, given your lack of reading comprehension) I never said you supported Hussein's regime, I merely pointed out - accurately - that your stance necessarily means your preference was for Hussein to still be running the show in Iraq today. By the rules of logic, it cannot be otherwise.

And that leads us to the second big reason you believe the ridiculous things you do - your inability to think things through logically. It never occurs to you that if the forceful removal of Hussein from power is prohibited, then the result will be that Hussein remains in power. 

Quote:

Heres where the problem lies. You believe the end justifies the means regardless of the motives that caused the action do you not?




Again, your lack of reading comprehension rears its head. No, GazzBut, as a Minarchist/Libertarian/Laissez-faire Capitalist/Classical Liberal I most emphatically reject the notion that the end justifies the means. That's the Collectivist mantra - your mantra. Despite our numerous confrontations over the years in this forum covering this exact same concept, you still are unable to grasp it.

Quote:

My take is that our motives were corrupt and our government has lied to us systematically about these motives.




Motives are irrelevant. Either it was correct to forcefully remove Hussein from power or it wasn't. Whether the decision was made out of concern he would supply terrorists a few hundred kilos of Sarin gas or to get him to stop murdering Iraqis or merely to look good in the eyes of voters makes not the tiniest bit of difference to the morality of the removal.

Quote:

If we had simply not got involved in the way we have who is to say that a peoples revolution would not have taken place the same as we have seen in Egypt or Tunisia.




Yeah.... that "people's revolution" in Iraq in 1991 worked out so well for them. And of course the only reason the Egyptians and Tunisians even dared to try a revolt at all was because they had seen a functioning Arab democracy (post-Saddam Iraq) nearby and were inspired by it.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblethe human abstract
malaka the werewolf
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 8,817
Re: Bin Laden [Re: zzripz]
    #14413834 - 05/07/11 04:49 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zzripz said:
Oh My Giddy Aunt!!!!!!
Listen up: OBAMA OOOPS I MEAN OSAMA DIED YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU GET IT??




:awewtf:


--------------------
★★


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNot Quite Social
I'm a teapot User Gallery

Registered: 07/16/10
Posts: 1,418
Loc: Midwest
Re: Bin Laden [Re: the human abstract]
    #14414136 - 05/07/11 07:42 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Johnm214, Here's the Wikipedia section--seems pretty credible to me.

--------------- Quote:

Allegations
Robin Cook
Bandar bin SultanThe BBC, in an article published shortly after the 9/11 attacks, stated that bin Laden "received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian."[1]

In a 2003 article, Michael Powelson of the Russian journal Demokratizatsiya wrote:

It is difficult to believe that the United States played no role in the operations of the son of one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, it is much more likely that the United States knew full-well of bin Laden's operation and gave it all the support they could.[2]

A 2004 BBC article entitled "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the BBC wrote:

During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.[3]

In a 2006 InDepth piece on Osama Bin Laden, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published that,[4]

Bin Laden apparently received training from the CIA, which was backing the Afghan holy warriors – the mujahedeen – who were tying down Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

An article in Der Spiegel, in 2007, entitled "Arming the Middle East", Siegesmund von Ilsemann called Bin Laden "one of the CIA's best weapons customers." [5]

According to author Steve Coll,

Overall, the U.S. government looked favorably on the Arab recruitment drives. ... Some of the most ardent cold warriors at [CIA headquarters at] Langley thought this program should be formally endorsed and extended. ... [T]he CIA "examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of international brigade" ... Robert Gates [then-head of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence] recalled. ... At the [CIA's] Islamabad station [station chief] Milt Bearden felt that bin Laden himself "actually did some very good things" by putting money into Afghanistan.[6]

Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary in the UK from 1997–2001, and Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from 2001-2003, believed the CIA had provided arms to the Arab Mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden, writing, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."[7]

In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.[8] Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden appreciated the United States help in Afghanistan. On CNN's Larry King program he said:[9]

Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

Bandar bin Sultan: Right.

According to Iranian state-owned Press TV, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed the United States was on intimate terms with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.[10]

According to author David N. Gibbs "a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests ... direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities."[11] Both Bin Laden and the CIA "held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)."[11] "Bin Laden worked especially closely with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar"[12] who Gibbs calls "the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander".[11] Gibbs quotes Le Monde as saying bin Laden was "recruited by the CIA" in 1979,[11][13] Associated Press as saying a former bin Laden aide told them that in 1989 the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden,[11][14] and Jane’s Intelligence Review as stating Bin Laden "worked in close association with U.S. agents" in raising money for the Mujahiddin from "vast family connections" near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.[11][15]


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Next > | Last >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bin Laden tape a fake, Swiss lab says ekomstop 1,294 11 10/31/04 02:22 PM
by Xlea321
* So, about that Osama bin Laden Tape..
( 1 2 all )
Catalysis 4,487 36 01/21/06 02:06 PM
by Cubenisseur
* Bin Laden is located, says 9/11 panelist ekomstop 2,173 14 10/26/04 05:18 AM
by CJay
* New Bin Laden Video
( 1 2 3 all )
1stimer 5,666 44 10/31/04 01:05 AM
by Rose
* Bin laden offers truce to Europe?
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 3,278 35 04/18/04 10:11 AM
by Xlea321
* Was bin Laden executed to spare Holder? zappaisgod 1,261 18 05/14/11 12:28 PM
by zappaisgod
* Tehran Radio says Bin Laden Captured mabus 1,300 10 02/29/04 11:12 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Hunt for bin Laden still intense Luddite 570 3 08/19/06 03:57 AM
by RosettaStoned

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
14,330 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.