Advertisement

Eric Margolis: 9/11. The Mother Of All Coincidences

topic posted Fri, January 20, 2012 - 5:29 PM by  Will
Share/Save/Bookmark
Will adds: Read through to his seven conclusions, and tell us what you think.

poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/20...tml

Eric Margolis: 9/11. The Mother Of All Coincidences
FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2012

Ever since 9/11, readers keep asking me my views on these attacks. I have been barraged with emails until my head spins with engineering studies about melting steel, controlled explosions, claims about nefarious plots, and wreckage analysis.

One of the most colorful theories comes from Gen. Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI. He insists that 9/11 was staged by Israel’s Mossad and a cabal of rightwing US Air Force generals.

I inspected the ruins of the New York’s Twin Towers, atop which I often dined, right after the attack. Downtown Manhattan was enveloped by a hideous, stinking miasma from the attack. I have never smelled anything so awful. It took me days to scrub the foul odor off my body. As a native New Yorker, I was shaken to the core by 9/11 – but hardly surprised, as I had predicted a major attack on the US nine days earlier.

While visiting the Pentagon to consult on the Mideast, I also inspected its outside wall hit by the third hijacked aircraft.
I saw photos of the impact site and could not understand what had happened to all the aircraft wreckage. There was almost none.

In 1993, I was hijacked over Germany on a Lufthansa flight bound for Cairo. The Ethiopian hijacker took us all the way back to New York City. The hijacker was threatening to crash our A310 jumbo jet into Wall Street.

Our flight was shadowed by US F-15 fighters that had orders to shoot, if necessary. Where, then, was US air defense on 11 Sept. 2001?

A day after 9/11, I was asked on CNN if Osama bin Laden was behind the attack. ‘We have yet to see the evidence,’ I replied. I maintain this position today.

Bin Laden denied he or al-Qaida was behind 9/11 and the death’s of nearly 3,000 people. The plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany and Madrid, Spain, not in Afghanistan. A Pakistani, Khaled Sheik Mohammed, claimed he was the mastermind – after being tortured by near-drowning 183 times by the CIA.

While denying involvement, Osama bin Laden did say he believed the attack on New York was in part motivated by Israel’s destruction of downtown Beirut during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon that inflicted some 18,000 civilian deaths.

Tapes that appeared to confirm bin Laden’s guilt were clumsy fakes. They were supposedly “found” in Afghanistan by the anti-Taliban Afghan Northern Alliance, which was created and funded by Russian intelligence.

I had met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and told CNN viewers that he was not the man in the tapes.

After 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised Americans the State Department would issue a White Paper detailing bin Laden’s guilt. Afghanistan’s Taliban government asked for this document before it would extradite bin Laden, as the US was demanding. The White Paper was never produced, and the US ignored proper legal procedure and invaded Afghanistan. We still wait for evidence.

I remain uncertain that Osama bin Laden was really behind the attacks. Much circumstantial evidence points to him and al-Qaida, but conclusive proof still lacks. One thing is certain: the attacks were planned and mounted from Germany, not Afghanistan. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudis, two from the United Arab Emirates, one an Egyptian and a Lebanese.

By the way, I’ve said ever since 9/11 that the danger and size of al-Qaida has been vastly exaggerated – as an explosive report this week by the London’s esteemed International Institute for Strategic Studies has just confirmed. Al-Qaida, dedicated to fighting the Afghan Communists, never had more than 300 members at its peak.

Today, according to CIA chief Leon Panetta, there are no more than 50 al-Qaida men in Afghanistan. Yet President Barack Obama has tripled the number of US troops in Afghanistan to 120,000 because of what to calls the al-Qaida threat. What is going on?

Many people abroad believe al-Qaida is an American invention used to justify foreign military operations. I do not share this view. Osama bin Laden was never a US agent, though his group indirectly received funds from CIA to fight the Communists.

Back to 9/11. I still cannot understand how amateur pilots could manage to maneuver in low to hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As a Pakistani intelligence agent told me, “if they were really amateur Arab pilots, they would have crashed into one another, not the World Trade Center!”

The arrest of Israeli “movers” filming the attack and dancing with joy, and the subsequent arrest of groups of Israeli “students” supposedly tracking the would-be hijackers remains a deep mystery. So does the immobilization of US air defenses.

The US 9/11 Commission was a whitewash, as are all such government commissions. They are designed to obscure, not reveal, the truth.

A 2006, a Scripps Howard/Washington Post poll found that 36% of the 1,000 Americans sampled believed the US government was behind 9/11. Many Americans still do not believe the official version of 9/11.

Neither do many Europeans. The entire Muslim world believes 9/11 was the work of Israel and far right American neocons, led by Dick Cheney.

If the official story about 9/11 is true, the attacks caught the Bush administration asleep on guard duty. Bush’s incompetent national security advisor, Condoleeza Rice, brushed off serious warnings of the impending attack and actually cut spending on anti-terrorism just before 9/11.

The White House and media were quick to blame Muslims who hated America’s lifestyle and values, launching the concept of “Islamic terrorism” – i.e. that the Muslim faith, not political issues, prompted the attacks.

This dangerous canard has infected America, leading to a rising tide of Islamophobia. This week’s continued uproar over a Muslim community center in downtown New York, and a Florida preacher’s threat to burn Korans, are the latest doleful example of cultivated religious hatred.

The suicide team that attacked New York and Washington made clear its aim was: a. to punish the US for backing Israel’s repression of Palestinians; and b. what they called US “occupation” of Saudi Arabia. Though they were all Muslims, religion was not the motivating factor.

As the CIA’s former bin Laden expert Michael Scheuer rightly observed, the Muslim world was furious at the US for what it was doing in their region, not because of America’s values, liberties or religion.

These motives for the 9/11 attack have been largely obscured by the whipping up hysteria over “Islamic terrorism.” The planting of anthrax in New York, Florida and Washington soon after 9/11 was clearly designed to promote further anti-Muslim furor. The perpetrators of this red herring remain unknown. But the anthrax attack hastened passage of the semi-totalitarian Patriot Act that sharply limited the personal freedoms of Americans and imposed draconian new laws.

Faked bin Laden videos and audio tapes. Planted anthrax. An intact Koran implausibly found at ground zero. Evidence in a hijacker’s bag that had somehow failed to make his ill-fated flight. Immediate claims that al-Qaida was behind the attacks. Those amateur kamikaze pilots and collapsing towers.

Perhaps most damning, tapes taken in London of meetings between President George Bush and PM Tony Blair revealed a sinister proposal by the US president to provoke war with Iraq by painting US aircraft in UN colors, then buzzing Iraqi air defenses until they fired on them, thus providing a “casus belli.” Bush also reportedly told Blair that after Iraq, he would “go on” to attack Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan.

In 1939, Nazi Germany dressed up soldiers in Polish uniforms to provoke a border fire-fight to justify Berlin’s ensuing invasion of Poland. Bush’s plan was of the same ilk. A president who would contemplate such a criminal operation might go a lot further to achieve his imperial dreams.

As a veteran journalist, to me, all this smells to high heaven. There are just too many unanswered questions, too many suspicions, and that old Roman legal question, “cui bono” – “to whose benefit?”

On 28 February, 1933, fire, set by a Dutch Jew, ravaged the Germany’s parliament, the Reichstag. While the Reichstag’s ruins were still smoking, Adolf Hitler’s government declared a war against “terrorism.” A “Decree for the Protection of People and State” was promulgated suspending all legal protections of speech, assembly, property, and personal liberties. The Reichstag fire allowed the government to round up “terrorism” suspects without due process of law and made police powers near absolute.

Sound familiar? Here’s another startling coincidence. Two years before 9/11, a series of mysterious apartment building bombings in Russia killed over 200 people. “Islamic terrorists” from Chechnya were blamed.

Panic swept Russia and boosted former KGB agent Vladimir Putin into full power. Russian security agents of FSB were caught red-handed planting explosives in another building, but the story was hushed up. A former FSB agent, Alexander Litvinenko, who tried to reveal this story, was murdered in London by radioactive polonium.

Similarly, the Bush administration’s neocons shamelessly used 9/11 to promote the invasion of Iraq. Just before the attack, polls showed 80% of Americans erroneously believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.

So what, in the end, can we conclude? 1. We still do not know the real story about 9/11. 2. The official version is not credible. 3. 9/11 was used to justify invading strategic Afghanistan and oil-rich Iraq. 4. The attacks plunged America into wars against the Muslim world and enriched the US arms industry. 5. 9/11 boosted pro-Israel neoconservatives, formerly a fringe group, into power, and with them America’s totalitarian far right. 6. Bush’s unprovoked war against Iraq destroyed one of Israel’s two main enemies. 7. 9/11 put America in what may turn out to be a permanent state of war with the Muslim world – a key goal of the neoconservatives.

But I’ve seen no hard evidence to date that 9/11 was a plot by America’s far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up. Just, perhaps, the Mother of All Coincidences. In the end, it may just have been 19 angry Arabs and a bumbling Bush administration looking for someone else to blame.

Eric Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website
Also See:
GORDON DUFF: AMERICA’S WORST KEPT 9/11 SECRET
ALAN HART: BREAKS SILENCE ABOUT 9/11 ON THE KEVIN BARRETT SHOW
posted by:
Will
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
  • Thank you for your diligence in disseminating information about this terrible deception that was used to wreck the US republic and waste trillions of dollars on useless wars that have accomplished exactly. nothing except further concentrate wealth in a few hands, bankrupt the country, and maim and destroy thousands of our children who drafted into this fiasco. This was the greatest tragedy in American history by far even exceeding the wreckage of the Civil War, and it was by far the greatest trick ever played on the American public.
  • <<Bin Laden denied he or al-Qaida was behind 9/11 and the death’s of nearly 3,000 people.

    This right here demonstrates the dishonest methods used by many truthers. Yes Bin Laden initially denied being responsible for 9-11, a denial that came in the wake of the US threatening to invade Afganistan unless the Taliban turned him over. But then Bin Laden later fessed up and admitted to 9-11. So why is this later acknowledgement by Bin Laden ignored by virtually every single truther? Because it does not fit in with your narrative, which = coming to a conclusion and then fitting the so called facts around that conclusion. Face it, your movement is on it's last legs, it is barely a blip on anyones radar.
    • images.icanhascheezburger.com/com....jpg

      This right here demonstrates the dishonest methods used by many wanna-be debunkers. They claim that points are being "ignored," when in fact it is more likely that there is significant reason to question the authenticity or validity of that point, and it has therefore been disregarded.

      As an example, in the first OBL "admission" tape (also known as the "Fat Bin Laden tape," due to the questionable consistency of his appearance with other videos and his physical ailments), bin Laden is reported to have mentioned a number of "hijackers" by name, three of them being Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Wail Alshehri. (www.cbsnews.com/stories/20...22092.shtml )

      "The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon"
      www.guardian.co.uk/world/20...tember112

      "Wail Alshehri: A man by the same name is a pilot whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay."
      s3.amazonaws.com/911timeli...92101.html

      One might dismiss the Alshehri case as a same-name coincidence... but be sure to compound that with the coincidence that the living Wail Alshehri also has a living brother named Waleed Alshehri... another of the alleged "hijackers."

      "He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco."
      news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...1559151.stm

      Odd that two of the "hijackers" named by OBL in the "confession video," who were supposedly personally selected and approved by OBL, are actually still alive and were not involved in 9/11. Why would he praise these glorious martyrs using supposed aliases after their supposed deaths?

      Now, Jeff has in the past railed against the validity of YouTube as a source, talking about how anyone can put anything on there... but apparently if anonymous sources post video or audio on a random "jihadi website," it should be taken as unvarnished truth if the Gubbermint says so. Thankfully, other third party analysis is a touch more skeptical, for example:

      Researcher: Bin Laden's beard is real, video is not
      news.cnet.com/8301-10784_...77136-7.html

      Swiss scientists 95% sure that Bin Laden recording was fake
      www.guardian.co.uk/world/20...terrorism

      Also note that the CIA has even admitted to producing fake bin Laden tapes.
      blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-ta..._d.html
      (of course, they claim they never released any... what a relief!)

      But I guess it's better to just accept at face value the "official" explanation as to the providence of these "confessions" and other recordings. Please excuse our critical thinking.
      • I am going to move forward with substantive debate about the real world with the likes of Gerbil, Elo, Andrew etc. I have wasted too many years discussing flying spaghetti monsters. If you want to discuss something real, feel free to join us. :)
        • Mm hmm. Run along then.

          Typical.

          You backhandedly call Solari "dishonest," and when someone counters your BS with actual facts, you switch to snotty, insulting condescension mode, with nothing to back it up.

          And please don't complain about how many "years you've wasted," when you, of your own accord, seem to feel the need to insert yourself into every 9/11 thread.

          "Flying spaghetti monsters?" Mm-kay bub. Nothing "mean spirited or intended to degrade or antagonize" about that, is there? Nah... squeaky clean, you are!

          "Want to discuss something real?" I guess the LA Times, BBC, Guardian, CNet, and Washinton Times aren't "real" enough for you.

          "Want to discuss something real?" Every week I post scores of relevant articles that have nothing to do with 9/11, but you seem to prefer to ignore those and mainly just play DNC cheerleader.
          • <<"Want to discuss something real?" Every week I post scores of relevant articles

            ......that nobody reads because you are flooding your threads with 20 different subjects. Try one subject at a time and people might actually read what you post, otherwise you are only wasting your time.
            • >>......that nobody reads because you are flooding your threads with 20 different subjects. Try one subject at a time and people might actually read what you post, otherwise you are only wasting your time.

              1) I know for a fact that people *do* read them.

              2) While there may be scores of articles each week, they generally cover only about five to ten subjects, and there's usually a fair chunk near the top that deal with various aspects of the major topic or two of the week. I started aggregating for weekly posts because if I just made a new thread for every article worthy of discussion, I'd be starting 9 out of 10 threads on the front page.

              3) It's not my fault nor my problem if you can't handle more information than the daily dispatches from HuffPo and WhiteHouse.gov. Some people actually like to be informed on a number of facets on a number of topics from a number of sources.

              >>I even deleted the links that neatly demonsrate my case last year in an attempt to unclutter my computer and my mind from unecessary B.S.

              Oh, of course you did. That's why you posted all those photos of melted non-aluminum, and an article on landfill fires that directly and completely contradicts what you've been claiming for years about "forge-like conditions." I'm sure your "deleted links" demonstrate your case as "neatly" as those did. But hey... I know how you feel... a simple Word document or .txt file listing a bunch of links really does tend to "clutter" a computer. Then again, if you knew what the hell you were talking about in the first place, you'd know what search terms could be used to retrieve these "deleted links," but alas, it appears that is not the case.
              • <<1) I know for a fact that people *do* read them.

                Yes, we know you have Will and Harmen who may on occasion read a couple of your links, so I overstated my case with the word "nobody". But the reason you get little traffic still remains, even 10 different subjects is all at once is too much. One subject at a time allows for debate and discussion. Most of the time you get ZERO responses. Post one at a time and I am certain you will get more readership. As a matter of fact, as long as it is not truther B.S. I myself will read and respond myself. This is not an on-line magazine dissemination of news sources like Huffington, Buzzflash, or even Drudge. This site is intended for debate and discussion.

                <<Some people actually like to be informed on a number of facets on a number of topics from a number of sources.

                And I do so on a daily basis. What I don't do is flood one thread with every subject I have read for the day.

                <<Oh, of course you did. That's why you posted all those photos of melted non-aluminum

                I was too busy at work to find my original links and hastily googled the subject. What it comes down to is that my work load has increased by a factor of 2, the economy is improving and I just don't have time for your pet truther project anymore. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but 10 years of discussing this subject is enough, time to move on.
                • >>Yes, we know you have Will and Harmen who may on occassion read a couple of your links, so I overstated my case with the word "nobody".

                  Sorry, there are more.

                  >>But the reason you get little traffic still remains, even 10 different subjects is all at once is too much. One subject at a time allows for debate and discussion. Most of the time you get ZERO responses. Post one at a time and I am certain you will get more readership.

                  You're mistaken if you think I'm looking for "responses." I'm looking for an indication that people are venturing anywhere outside the box of MSM talking points, and that rarely seems to be the case around here.

                  >>And I do so on a daily basis,

                  Yeah right.

                  >> what I don't do is flood one thread with every subject I have read for the day.

                  I don't. I make a post for the week. And unlike the vast majority of your topics, mine are not fluff. I'd rather read fifty articles about what's going on in the real world then waste five seconds with some self-congratulatory Democrat circle jerk about how it's "2012 or never," or read some fawning sycophant's word-for-word re-posting of an Obama speech.

                  >>I was too busy at work to find my original links and hastily googled the subject.

                  Mm hmm. Excuses excuses, and bad ones at that.

                  >>What it came down to is that the my work load has increased exponentially, the economy is improving and I just don't have time for your pet truther project anymore

                  And yet... here you are.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <<You're mistaken if you think I'm looking for "responses." I'm looking for an indication that people are venturing anywhere outside the box of MSM talking points, and that rarely seems to be the case around here.

                    How can you get an "indication" of anything without some sort of response? You can't.

                    <<And unlike the vast majority of your topics, mine are not fluff.

                    Yeah, because we know how the Middle East Peace process = "fluff". *rolls eyes*

                    <<<And yet... here you are.

                    Yes, here I am spending my time on subjects of my choosing, as opposed to continuing the beating of the 9-11 dead horse for another 10 years. No thanks! Now, if you want to discuss something non 9-11 conspiracy theory related and you consider it to not be fluff, post ONE subject for ONE thread and I will be happy to engage you. Beyond that, not wasting my time on truther B.S. anymore.
                    • >>How can you get an "indication" of anything without some sort of response? You can't.

                      Maybe *you* can't.

                      >>Yeah, because we know how the Middle East Peace process = "fluff". *rolls eyes*

                      Not the process itself, but the general "discussion" around here is for the most part, shall we say... pedestrian.

                      >>Yes, here I am spending my time on subjects of my choosing, as opposed to continuing the beating of the 9-11 dead horse for another 10 years. No thanks!

                      And yet... here you are. In this thread. Beating your 9/11 disinfo horse.

                      >>Now, if you want to discuss something non 9-11 conspiracy theory related and you consider it to not be fluff, post ONE subject for ONE thread and I will be happy to engage you.

                      I don't need to be taking my posting guidelines from Democorp fanboys, thankyouverymuch.
    • <But then Bin Laden later fessed up and admitted to 9-11>

      I do believe that's where the author said that he does not believe that was Bin Laden.
      • Bind Laden looked different in large part because he started dying his beard, a common practice in the M.E. This was confirmed by US soldiers when they took him out, dyed beard and all.
        • Yup. Totally common.
          www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php

          And of course, Jeff will claim that it's okay to dye your beard if you're engaged in jihad and you're trying to deceive your enemy (this is what he means by "common practice"). Because after all, since there were already scores of photos and videos of bin Laden's graying whiskers, he was obviously trying to "deceive" us into believing he had found the fountain of youth. Or invented a time machine. One of the two. He was a crafty one, that bin Laden.

          >>This was confirmed by US soldiers when they took him out, dyed beard and all.

          Got any reference for that? I mean, if the gubbermint says so, it must be true, but I don't believe I happened to catch that tidbit in any of the reports I saw.
          • <<Yup. Totally common.
            www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php

            So your rebuttal is comprised of a question posed by some dude on a thread? Here, I have a similar type of source for you.

            "Arab and Muslim Men do 'indeed' dye their beards. This is especially common here in Arabia. Typically, it is henna... it will start out black and then fade to a reddish tint over time.

            Also note, Pakistanis (especially Pathans who live in the NW frontier regions) are especially fond of doing this.

            I have heard one too many 'so called' Middle-East and Muslim experts give out false information about this concerning the most recent bin Laden video. I have even seen henna-dyed imams.

            Come visit Arabia for awhile I will be glad to show you as many dyed beards as you like.

            I even had mine dyed by the very good Pakistani barbers here a few times..."
            www.democraticunderground.com/dis....php

            <<Got any reference for that? I mean, if the gubbermint says so, it must be true, but I don't believe I happened to catch that tidbit in any of the reports I saw.

            "Was the terrorist leader going through a mid-life crisis? It seemed to be a hot topic on the morning talk shows, with "The View's" Joy Behar commenting, "He was on herbal Viagra... six wives, you do the math. The guy really needed to get it going!" His grey beard was also dyed black and his last wife, Amal, was only 29."
            life_crisis_hair_dye_herbal_viagra_and_a_young_wife.php#ixzz1p1U9kJB1

            Regardless, I am backsliding in to the realm of truther B.S. again, time to get back on the wagon! :)~
            • >>Come visit Arabia for awhile I will be glad to show you as many dyed beards as you like.

              It was a very specific question about whether they can dye it *black,* and the post was sourced to IslamQA.com

              >>extratv.warnerbros.com/2011/0...ife.php

              ahaha... "Extra..." anyway...

              1) Nowhere does that indicate any soldier "confirming" anything (and therefore doesn't qualify as a "source" for your claim)

              2) No actual source for the dyed-beard claim is given. (unless maybe they also found his 29-year-old wife in the medicine cabinet as well)

              3) Let's see the pics/video already, if they're real. "If the gubbermint says so, it must be true" doesn't actually fly with me. This Extra "article" isn't really doing anything more than reprinting a Pentagon press release.
              • <<It was a very specific question about whether they can dye it *black,*

                And the answer is YES they can. As a matter of fact, it is tradition in many Muslim countries for a Shiek to dye their graying beard, usually red. And as I have demonstrated, it is also a practice in SA where Bin Lade is from.

                <<Let's see the pics/video already, if they're real.

                I would like to see them as well, and it sounds like the pics will be released. But of course we know that the truther community will simply claim they are fake, so there is really no evidence beyond seeing the body yourself that would convince you.
                • Hilarious. They dye it red/orange, so they can dye it black, even though there's a specific distinction. Whatever you say.

                  It must be true! Obama told me so!
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Color me confused, but I made no mention of Obama informing me of the tradition of beard dying in Arab countries. As far as I know he has never spoke about this tradition, so your sarcasm is baseless and illogical.

                    Ever notice that the King of Saudi Arabia is 87 years old, and yet his hair and beard are jet black? Wonder how he did that? : )~
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    << They dye it red/orange, so they can dye it black, even though there's a specific distinction.

                    By the way, the distinction actually helps my argument being that a dyed black beard can be indicative of a warrior trying to intimidate his enemy. So tell me, how does a distinction that helps my argument = hillarious?
  • Not to just poison the well here, but ... "He insists that 9/11 was staged by Israel’s Mossad and a cabal of rightwing US Air Force generals." Really? A Pakistani blames it on Israel? Shocking.

    "I saw photos of the impact site [at the Pentagon] and could not understand what had happened to all the aircraft wreckage. There was almost none." I guess all of those hundreds of people that SAW the plane were all lying...

    "Where, then, was US air defense on 11 Sept. 2001?"

    Proof! That's proof!

    <I still cannot understand how amateur pilots could manage to maneuver in low to hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As a Pakistani intelligence agent told me, “if they were really amateur Arab pilots, they would have crashed into one another, not the World Trade Center!”>

    More proof!

    <The arrest of Israeli “movers” filming the attack and dancing with joy, and the subsequent arrest of groups of Israeli “students” supposedly tracking the would-be hijackers remains a deep mystery>

    More proof!

    <Bush also reportedly told Blair that after Iraq, he would “go on” to attack Saudi Arabia, Syria and Pakistan.>

    HA!

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
ISIS svetlana 20 Today, 8:44 AM
United Nations Launches Equality Campaign For Women with UN Se... K 12 Yesterday, 11:24 PM
Occupy Building 7 - November 19-20 Harmen 329 October 19, 2014
The Climate Wars... Harmen 228 October 18, 2014