Home | Community | Message Board


Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
"The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
    #2426874 - 03/13/04 11:22 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Here is the opening of Blair's speech delivered March 5, as well as a few excerpts cherry-picked from the body of the speech. The entire speech can be found here --

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004783

-- and in my opinion it is well worth reading the whole thing. Too bad Bush's speech writers are not of the same caliber as whoever wrote this one.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

No decision I have ever made in politics has been as divisive as the decision to go to war to in Iraq. It remains deeply divisive today. I know a large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the government should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs, living standards, health, education, crime. I share that view, and we are.

But I know too that the nature of this issue over Iraq, stirring such bitter emotions as it does, can't just be swept away as ill-fitting the preoccupations of the man and woman on the street. This is not simply because of the gravity of war; or the continued engagement of British troops and civilians in Iraq; or even because of reflections made on the integrity of the Prime Minister. It is because it was in March 2003 and remains my fervent view that the nature of the global threat we face in Britain and round the world is real and existential, and it is the task of leadership to expose it and fight it, whatever the political cost; and that the true danger is not to any single politician's reputation, but to our country if we now ignore this threat or erase it from the agenda in embarrassment at the difficulties it causes.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The real point is that those who disagree with the war, disagree fundamentally with the judgment that led to war. What is more, their alternative judgment is both entirely rational and arguable. Kosovo, with ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, was not a hard decision for most people; nor was Afghanistan after the shock of September 11; nor was Sierra Leone.

Iraq in March 2003 was an immensely difficult judgment. It was divisive because it was difficult. I have never disrespected those who disagreed with the decision. Sure, some were anti-American; some against all wars. But there was a core of sensible people who faced with this decision would have gone the other way, for sensible reasons. Their argument is one I understand totally. It is that Iraq posed no direct, immediate threat to Britain; and that Iraq's WMD, even on our own case, was not serious enough to warrant war, certainly without a specific U.N. resolution mandating military action. And they argue: Saddam could, in any event, be contained.

In other words, they disagreed then and disagree now fundamentally with the characterization of the threat. We were saying this is urgent; we have to act; the opponents of war thought it wasn't. And I accept, incidentally, that however abhorrent and foul the regime and however relevant that was for the reasons I set out before the war, for example in Glasgow in February 2003, regime change alone could not be and was not our justification for war. Our primary purpose was to enforce U.N. resolutions over Iraq and WMD.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The characterization of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live. Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living. If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.

This is true also of our security.

The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalization is to the world's economy.

It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed. But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanized me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000, they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Muslims and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Here is the crux. It is possible that even with all of this, nothing would have happened. Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere. We cannot be certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord.

But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgment. And my judgment then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organizations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run.

This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favor playing it long. Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivet? and at worst dereliction. When they talk, as they do now, of diplomacy coming back into fashion in respect of Iran or North Korea or Libya, do they seriously think that diplomacy alone has brought about this change? Since the war in Iraq, Libya has taken the courageous step of owning up not just to a nuclear weapons program but to having chemical weapons, which are now being destroyed. Iran is back in the reach of the IAEA. North Korea in talks with China over its WMD. The A.Q. Khan network is being shut down, its trade slowly but surely being eliminated.

Yet it is monstrously premature to think the threat has passed. The risk remains in the balance here and abroad.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

These days decisions about it come thick and fast, and while they are not always of the same magnitude they are hardly trivial. Let me give you an example. A short while ago, during the war, we received specific intelligence warning of a major attack on Heathrow. To this day, we don't know if it was correct and we foiled it or if it was wrong. But we received the intelligence. We immediately heightened the police presence. At the time it was much criticized as political hype or an attempt to frighten the public. Actually at each stage we followed rigidly the advice of the police and Security Service.

But sit in my seat. Here is the intelligence. Here is the advice. Do you ignore it? But, of course intelligence is precisely that: intelligence. It is not hard fact. It has its limitations. On each occasion the most careful judgment has to be made taking account of everything we know and the best assessment and advice available. But in making that judgment, would you prefer us to act, even if it turns out to be wrong? Or not to act and hope it's OK? And suppose we don't act and the intelligence turns out to be right, how forgiving will people be?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Which brings me to the final point. It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalize and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe). This may be the law, but should it be?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Containment will not work in the face of the global threat that confronts us. The terrorists have no intention of being contained. The states that proliferate or acquire WMD illegally are doing so precisely to avoid containment. Emphatically I am not saying that every situation leads to military action. But we surely have a duty and a right to prevent the threat materializing; and we surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's. Otherwise, we are powerless to fight the aggression and injustice which over time puts at risk our security and way of life.

Which brings us to how you make the rules and how you decide what is right or wrong in enforcing them. The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a fine document. But it is strange the United Nations is so reluctant to enforce them.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+

It means reforming the United Nations so its Security Council represents 21st century reality; and giving the U.N. the capability to act effectively as well as debate. It means getting the U.N. to understand that faced with the threats we have, we should do all we can to spread the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and justice for the oppressed, however painful for some nations that may be; but that at the same time, we wage war relentlessly on those who would exploit racial and religious division to bring catastrophe to the world.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Lots more great stuff in that speech. Hopefully at least some you here will click the link and read the entire thing.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblequestion_for_joo
i'm left. youall can bite me
Registered: 04/30/03
Posts: 1,591
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Phred]
    #2426960 - 03/13/04 11:59 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Unlike Bush's speechwriters, Blair's speechwriters take the time to elaborate and explore all these points that is necessary in order to make the attack-first policy seem reasonable. I think it'd be impossible to make a good case for all this stuff restricted by Bush's little 4 minute monosyllabic-halting speech style.

I especially like the thing about the U.N.s universal declaration of human rights not being enforced. The only beef I have with what's set out here is that it ignores how Israel abuses the human rights of Palestinians which is what makes the arabs so pissy in the first place.


--------------------
youi was a pig informatnt so you can go fuckyoruselfs


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Phred]
    #2427128 - 03/13/04 01:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Nice speech, but here's a problem I had with it:
Quote:

September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanized me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000, they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Muslims and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.



It sounds to me like he's trying to group Saddam with the religious fanatics responsible for 9/11. It's not a very good fit. Saddam was a secular leader in a Muslim country. The Ba'ath party itself was founded on secularism. I also don't buy into the logic that September 11th somehow changed the rules.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Edited by silversoul7 (03/13/04 01:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: silversoul7]
    #2427158 - 03/13/04 01:12 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Ironically Iraq was the arab nation most opposed to al-qaeda.

Makes you wonder if the countless billions pissed away pursuing neocon world domination fantasies in Iraq had actually been spent combating terrorism perhaps 198 people wouldn't be laying dead in Spain today.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,764
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 9 minutes, 54 seconds
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: silversoul7]
    #2427226 - 03/13/04 01:38 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

But SS7, he didn't saaaaaaaaaaaaay that Saddam had a part in 9-11.  :rolleyes:




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


Mp3 of the month: The Loose Enz - The Black Door



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Learyfan]
    #2427288 - 03/13/04 01:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Learyfan said:
But SS7, he didn't saaaaaaaaaaaaay that Saddam had a part in 9-11.  :rolleyes:



Nor did I say he did.  I was referring to his implication that Saddam was a religious extremist like the 9/11 perpetrators.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Learyfan]
    #2427383 - 03/13/04 02:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

terrorism, rogue nations, sneak attacks, bombings, dictators, wars, oil shortages, etc., have been around a long time, the whole dog and pony show is geared to do one thing: see pic




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

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinerecalcitrant
My Own God

Registered: 04/20/02
Posts: 2,927
Loc: Canada West
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: mabus]
    #2427676 - 03/13/04 04:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Well I can't see the pic. It's not loading.

Also, the 3k ppl who died in the WTC on 9.11 were not "innocent."


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

We have to answer our own prayers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: recalcitrant]
    #2427715 - 03/13/04 04:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Also, the 3k ppl who died in the WTC on 9.11 were not "innocent."



What do you mean? I guess you're correct if by "innocent" you mean "without sin," but what did the people who died in that attack do to the terrorists?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 11 months, 23 days
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Phred]
    #2427729 - 03/13/04 04:55 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Nice article. Thanks.
SS7, I don't think he is tying Saddam into it at that point. The relation to Saddam is given in the next three paragraphs.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: mntlfngrs]
    #2428694 - 03/13/04 09:45 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Exactly.

The reason I had posted the link was so that people would read the entire speech. The excerpts are there to pique one's interest, not to provide a complete context of the remarks.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemabus
anguish this!

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 956
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Phred]
    #2428726 - 03/13/04 09:52 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

the link was excellent, the excerpts piqued my interest. great post! it made me come to my post above.


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

http://www.sacredshrooms.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 3 days
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: recalcitrant]
    #2428817 - 03/13/04 10:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

recalcitrant said:


Also, the 3k ppl who died in the WTC on 9.11 were not "innocent."





Oh ok. Then I guess the "innocent" civillians that died in the Afghani and Iraq war weren't innocent either.

No innocent people were harmed in the making of this quagmire.


Guess there's nothing to whine about then.


All is good.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJangempo
Stranger

Registered: 01/08/03
Posts: 14
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: silversoul7]
    #2429541 - 03/13/04 11:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Maybe he meant that despite the ignorance of those thousands of people killed 9.11, they worked to thoroughly spread the capitalist regime around the world. Perhaps that, anyone who worked in the WTC was an integral part of a culture that has preyed off of, and is in the process of exhausting, the livelyhood of another culture.

The crimes comitted by the west, especially those at the expense of Arabs around the world, infuriates many people, inlucing OBL et.al


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Jangempo]
    #2429614 - 03/14/04 12:02 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Jangempo writes:

Maybe he meant that despite the ignorance of those thousands of people killed 9.11, they worked to thoroughly spread the capitalist regime around the world.

Do you mean "regime" in the dictionary sense or do you mean the "capitalist ethic"?

Perhaps that, anyone who worked in the WTC was an integral part of a culture that has preyed off of, and is in the process of exhausting, the livelyhood of another culture.

By "livelihood of another culture", do you mean oil?

The crimes comitted by the west...

Such as?

...especially those at the expense of Arabs around the world...

And which crimes has the US committed against Arabs?

...infuriates many people...

You make me mad, therefore it's just for me to kill people who live somewhere near you. Uh huh.

... inlucing OBL et.al

So by your reasoning, OBL et. al's crimes against the West justify many people being infuriated enough to... oh, I dunno... fly a couple of airplanes into Mecca.

Got it.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,764
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 9 minutes, 54 seconds
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: silversoul7]
    #2430040 - 03/14/04 02:08 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Quote:

Learyfan said:
But SS7, he didn't saaaaaaaaaaaaay that Saddam had a part in 9-11.  :rolleyes:



Nor did I say he did.  I was referring to his implication that Saddam was a religious extremist like the 9/11 perpetrators.




I was just taking a little jab at the peeps who say that Bush didn't paint a picture of Saddam being an imminent threat just because he himself didn't say those words.




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


Mp3 of the month: The Loose Enz - The Black Door



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: Learyfan]
    #2430114 - 03/14/04 02:42 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

And they definately didn't say he had any WMD...nope..never.

LONDON, March 7 (UPI) -- The United Nation's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq suggested Sunday the United States and Britain have exaggerated the threat of terrorism.

Hans Blix was responding to Prime Minister Tony Blair's passionate speech last week in defense of the Iraqi conflict, the London Telegraph reported.

Blair had warned the world faced "mortal danger" from terrorists prepared to wage "war without limits." The Prime Minister urged the U.N. to consider changing international law to allow intervention in states which posed a threat.

Blix urged caution over the doctrine of preemptive strikes. Appearing on BBC1's "Breakfast with Frost," Blix said the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq had been wrong, but the United States and United Kingdom had acted like "witch-hunters,"
preferring to believe their fears rather than the evidence presented to them."



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: silversoul7]
    #2431167 - 03/14/04 02:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Nice speech, but here's a problem I had with it:
Quote:

September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together. The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people. But what galvanized me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3,000. But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000, they would have rejoiced in it. The purpose was to cause such hatred between Muslims and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.



It sounds to me like he's trying to group Saddam with the religious fanatics responsible for 9/11. It's not a very good fit. Saddam was a secular leader in a Muslim country. The Ba'ath party itself was founded on secularism. I also don't buy into the logic that September 11th somehow changed the rules.





Odd, really, since the paragraph that you quoted doesn't say "saddam" "iraq" "ba'ath", etc. Are you just making it say what you want to, or is it the case that for the third or fourth day in a row, you say something that you don't mean, and I call you on it, and you correct it and make it sound as if it's my fault for not understanding what is said? :-)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: TheOneYouKnow]
    #2431188 - 03/14/04 02:20 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Odd, really, since the paragraph that you quoted doesn't say "saddam" "iraq" "ba'ath", etc. Are you just making it say what you want to, or is it the case that for the third or fourth day in a row, you say something that you don't mean, and I call you on it, and you correct it and make it sound as if it's my fault for not understanding what is said? :-)



The speech was about Iraq. He would not have included the 9/11 hijackers if he wasn't somehow trying to connect them with Saddam. Nice try, tho. Maybe someday you'll come up with an intelligent response.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair [Re: silversoul7]
    #2431209 - 03/14/04 02:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
The speech was about Iraq.  He would not have included the 9/11 hijackers if he wasn't somehow trying to connect them with Saddam.  Nice try, tho.  Maybe someday you'll come up with an intelligent response.




If you can quote me a passage where he connects them, other than as Muslims, I'd like to see it.

Hah, "maybe someday" ? Mr "The founding fathers weren't Christian"? Mr "pistols aren't used for hunting"?
haha i've shredded so many of your fucking ignorant posts that I'm almost tired of doing so...
almost :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Whos fault is global terrorism?
( 1 2 all )
Crobih 1,196 29 03/24/03 09:45 PM
by zeronio
* Tony Blair Sets Election Date Madtowntripper 531 7 04/06/05 03:38 AM
by GazzBut
* The most important Terrorism Xlea321 400 2 09/25/04 05:53 PM
by Mad_Buhdda_Abuser
* Global warming: The Three degrees....
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 2,408 35 04/19/06 09:39 AM
by Alex213
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 9,947 119 02/27/04 03:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Blair Urged To Push Bush on Climate GazzBut 738 2 07/01/05 05:23 AM
by GazzBut
* Blair's "Special" Relationship st0nedphucker 457 2 05/21/04 12:06 AM
by Evolving
* Deep Events and the CIA’s Global Drug Connection
( 1 2 3 all )
Cannashroom 2,918 57 10/01/08 01:08 PM
by Redstorm

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,059 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.121 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.