Skip to main content

I hear a lot of politicians using the phrase "war on terror" and wish they would find a different set of words. We might as well be fighting a war on upstarting or a war on fear, or maybe a war on common sense. I got affirmation of my feelings today from this article in The Nation and suggest you read it too. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=187105
"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
I hear a lot of politicians using the phrase "war on terror" and wish they would find a different set of words. We might as well be fighting a war on upstarting or a war on fear, or maybe a war on common sense. I got affirmation of my feelings today from this article in The Nation and suggest you read it too. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=187105


EdEKit , I strongly agree with this article very well. A friend of mine and I were talking a few weeks ago about the war. We both think the media and everybody just need to STOP talking about the war and quit showing it completely. All these war on terrorist on TV is like putting a fish bait on the hook to get them to be seen and talked about aggressively.
quote:
Originally posted by dogsmaster:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
I hear a lot of politicians using the phrase "war on terror" and wish they would find a different set of words. We might as well be fighting a war on upstarting or a war on fear, or maybe a war on common sense. I got affirmation of my feelings today from this article in The Nation and suggest you read it too. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=187105


EdEKit , I strongly agree with this article very well. A friend of mine and I were talking a few weeks ago about the war. We both think the media and everybody just need to STOP talking about the war and quit showing it completely. All these war on terrorist on TV is like putting a fish bait on the hook to get them to be seen and talked about aggressively.
I had not considered that, and I should have. Calling it the war on Al Qaeda, or even terrorists might be a much better way, Except that then the speech writers would have to come up with a different name for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Maybe we should admit that we are fighting two wars. The war on Al Qaeda, and the war on war. We already have a reputation for fighting war to end all war, that happened prior to 1918 and worked so well that we had another in 1940. and then another in 1952, and then another in 1960 and then this one.
Yes, good article Ed and I agree.

Terrorism is a tactic and we can't fight terrorism by using terrorism. Or as the media watch group FAIR says "You can't fight terrorism with ignorance." (www.fair.org)

Al Qaeda are really a small group of religious extremists that had little support for their extremism until the US invasion of Iraq. Bin Laden has written that his goal is to drive the West from the region and create his Islamic States. The West has dominated the region since WW1. It's always been about oil.

We can end the hatred by ending our support of puppet regimes and support freedom and justice in the region. We also need to end our support of Israelis occupation of Palestine and it's ethnic cleansing and land stealing. We need to address the problems of the region, poverty, injustice and repression. Support for al Qaeda and extremism will dry up.

Also the War in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Bush and his cronies continually try to tie the attacks on the US on 9/11 with their war in Iraq. It's a lie.

There were no al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the US invasion and the Bush Bunch were planning the attack before Bush stole the election. Bush used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext on phony evidence to launch his illegal war. Most of the world saw through it. Only the greedy like Blair supported it.

If we leave Iraq al Qaeda's influence will shrink. When the war first broke out the Sunni resistance wanted no part of al Qaeda and they even had minor skirmishes but as time goes on they are beginning to ally with them for strength. The Sunni resistance are ex Ba'ath military and are secular. They want nothing to do with religious fanatics.

Independent investigative journalist Robert Parry has been following this and has written a number of articles on it. Even the US intelligence knows that al Qaeda wants the US to stay in Iraq. It has helped them grow. Consortiumnews.com
There are times pogo, that I wish I could be as focused and concise as you.

I think I need an editor, and a fact checker, and I am definitely not asking for volunteers.

I think that part of the problem is sloganeering. This one phrase, "You can't legislate morality," resounds in my head all the time.

This blog entry explains the problems that creates, but it's something I have to deal with all the time. http://dtww.blogspot.com/2004/11/why-you-cant-legislate-morality-and.html

Before you click on that, it is a discussion of the concept, and has next to nothing to do with the subject of finding a better way to express what we are doing in Iraq. If anything it is a step back from that issue. To the idea that slogans are problematic when debating specifics.

A good portion of my educational background is in linguistics. In fact, I spent a lot of time Reading Noam Chomsky on the subject of how language works, and know him better as a linguist than as a pacifist.

Language is, or rather was, before the internet, divided into two subgroups. One was, for lack of a better word, conversational language, and the other was written language. I think the internet, and spaces like this one, have created a middle ground between the two.

This is close to conversational language, it is quite informal, often hastily assembled and intended to spark conversation. But it is written, presented as a solitary expression, and generally more carefully constructed than an oral conversation ever would be.

In the arena of written language it is possible to reconsider what is to be published, and it is also generally more carefully put. Vocabulary expands, grammar is more carefully attended to. And the reader has time to parse what is said.

I do write, and have written most of my life, in a "conversational" style. I have a lot of experience putting speeches together. Slogans are great in spoken communication. They get an immediate response. But they are worthless when trying to express an idea.

"War on terror" has a meaning. It is like the word "food" in some respects. If you say food, it can mean beans or it can mean lobster thermador. When you say "war on terror" it can mean the quiet, covert investigation of who and where and when, or it can mean the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Using the phrase blurs the meaning of what you have to say.

To carry on a debate, or a negotiation, it is necessary to be precise in how you express the meaning of what you want to present.

I can agree with GW Bush on the topic of preventing terror attacks. We need to do that, and we need to do it all the time. If there were no need to prevent terrorism, locks on doors would be unnecessary. Guns would be seen as only instruments for getting meat. There would be no justification for building an arsenal of democracy (to use another slogan) because democracy would be safe from attack.

I think that Bush, and the propaganda machine that supports the War on Iraq has corrupted the meaning of "war on terror" by using it to describe the invasion of Iraq.
And, I think that corruption of meaning has become part of the vernacular of political discussion. We do need to combat Terrorism. We don't need to occupy Iraq to do that. By linking the two the propagandist makes the war in Iraq justifiable to the people who succumb to the slogan.
interventor

Best to call it the War for Civilization.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't know, what civilization would you be referring to? One that invades weaker countries on lies to steal their resources? Shock and Awe? Killing tens of thousands of civilians. There is a saying, "car bombs are the poor man's airforce."

But as Former General Tommy Franks so arrogantly proclaimed, "We don't do body counts."

Yes, how civilized.

Torture, Guantanamo, kidnapping "suspects" and sending them to secret prisons?

Wiretapping citizens without warrants?

Yes, we are so superior and civilized. We just press buttons and missiles are launched, very civilized. We bomb and kill from jets so high up they can't even be seen from the ground.

Yes, very civilized.

How about sanctions on a country that results in the deaths of a million people, half a million of them children. As Madeline Albrigth assured Leslie Stall when asked on the program 60 minutes if the sanctions are worth the death of half a million children Albright replied, "Yes, we think it's worth the price."

Yes, how civilized.
Pogo,

Any dead children caused by the sanctions were caused by Saddam and a corrupt UN. Ample funds were available from oil sales to buy food and medical supplies. Instead, the money went to buy palaces, booze for the Republican Guard and bribes for the UN enablers and the suppliers. One of the 20 or so palaces is larger than Disneyland. Most are funished with a combination of metal embossing, stone work and K-mart blues light specials. Hussein family was a version of the Sopranos.

There are no wire taps. Intercepts of satellite transmissions originating in Wazirstan and Baluchistan. Law allows a 24 hour period before applying for a warrant.

Eddie,

Yes it is a center -- usurped from the Christians who are now a minority in their own land And only about 38 jews still exist in Baghdad. The rest were driven out. A jewish lady persuaded Saddam's mother not to get an abortion, after abandonment by her husband.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Pogo,

Any dead children caused by the sanctions were caused by Saddam and a corrupt UN. Ample funds were available from oil sales to buy food and medical supplies. Instead, the money went to buy palaces, booze for the Republican Guard and bribes for the UN enablers and the suppliers. One of the 20 or so palaces is larger than Disneyland. Most are funished with a combination of metal embossing, stone work and K-mart blues light specials. Hussein family was a version of the Sopranos.

There are no wire taps. Intercepts of satellite transmissions originating in Wazirstan and Baluchistan. Law allows a 24 hour period before applying for a warrant.

Eddie,

Yes it is a center -- usurped from the Christians who are now a minority in their own land And only about 38 jews still exist in Baghdad. The rest were driven out. A jewish lady persuaded Saddam's mother not to get an abortion, after abandonment by her husband.
I will accept only the last sentence of the above without supporting documents. Things like the construction dates of the Palaces would be helpful, a bar tab, or the import records of the booze as well. You can be so easily led.

I didn't say the Christians, or for that matter the Jews were the originators of civilization. I didn't even claim they were civilized. In fact, Iraq is not the Christians "own" land, nor is it the Jewish homeland. The Jewish history itself says that they were without a homeland from the time Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden until God Showed Moses the Promised land, The Christian religion bases its beginning in Jerusalem, in the region of the Jordan River. The fertile triangle is between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Neither play any part in Christian or Jewish mythology or history. For that you have to look to the Sinai desert, and the Nile. For the roots of Christianity you need to look to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, the river Jordan, and a little town called Rome, the historic Capital of the Emperors of the Roman Empire.

BUT, for civilization at least Western Civilization you have to look to the Sumerians and the religion of the God Marduk.
quote:
Marduk

In Mesopotamian religion, the chief god of the city of Babylon and the national god of Babylonia. He began as a god of thunderstorms, and according to legend he became lord of all the gods after conquering the monster of primeval chaos, Tiamat. Marduk's star was the planet Jupiter, and his sacred animals were horses, dogs, and a dragon with a forked tongue, representations of which adorned Babylon's walls.

For more information on Marduk, visit Britannica.com.


Now, regarding civilization, Mesopotamia, Sumeria and Babylonia play an important role in Judaic History, because of the mythology of Marduk who, in the process of becoming the Lord of Lords he crucified Pale, who, being a god, rose from his grave, and being smarter than the average bear, high tailed it to the northern frontier, where he sort of held court in a land called Palestine, and where the Jews came after their escape from bondage in Egypt, under the leadership of Moses, and after a few generations of heavy duty warfare, took over.
That's the history, regarding the religions, I won't rationalize any attempt to justify war in the name of God, despite the fact that people have been doing it since before Adam and Eve.
The main cause of death in Iraq under the sanctions was due to drinking contaminated water and disease related to it. The sanctions denied chlorine to purify their water. During the First Gulf War the US bombed the water purification installations then denied them the chlorine. It was a deliberate strategy devised by the Pentagon. Infants, children, the elderly and weak died.

For the first 3 or 4 years medical supplies were denied. Even after certain medical equipement was denied. One had to due with helping children with cancer. And there was shortages of even ones that were allowed.

There was not "ample money for food" which was the point of the sanctions. The Iraqi people were the targets.

The US sat on the UN board and reviewed all sales. The US has also admitted it was aware of secret illegal sales of oil by Saddam to Jordan and Turkey but allowed them because they are US allies.

Saddam was corrupt and did use money to rebuild his military and a number of home like palaces for himself but he also build Moques, roads and rebuilt the infrastructure, as best he could and had electricty and water restored throughout Iraq within the first year after the War. He also made sure that food, though scarce, was distributed equally. Being denied chlorine there was nothing he could do.

The US was well aware of the strategy of the scantions and it's results and as Madeline Albright said "Worth the price."
Would it be easier to remove ourselves from Iraq if we would use more independent terms, such as to involve more direct conflicts than to be so vague as this war on terror as we call it. The way it is we are declaring war on an unknown enemy with no front and no reachable goal. #Why not the war on AL Qaeda, the war on Taliban, the war on insugents bent on our destruction. As it is there will be no end to this war on terror, why don't we fight one battle at a time, instead of declaring war on something that cannot end.
Would it be easier to remove ourselves from Iraq if we would use more independent terms, such as to involve more direct conflicts than to be so vague as this war on terror as we call it. The way it is we are declaring war on an unknown enemy with no front and no reachable goal. #Why not the war on AL Qaeda, the war on Taliban, the war on insugents bent on our destruction. As it is there will be no end to this war on terror, why don't we fight one battle at a time, instead of declaring war on something that cannot end.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. The war in Iraq is about oil, imperialism and corporate globalization.

Iraq did not attack us and there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before our invasion and occupation. Saddam had effectively wiped them out.

The resistance in Iraq are fighting against US occupation. Al Qaeda are only a small part of the resistance. If we leave Iraq support for al Qaeda will dry up. They are religious extremists who are fighting against US and western dominance of their region and to create their Islamic states. They have little support among the average Muslim person for their religious extremism. They are at war with every government in the region except the Taliban. Even Hamas and Hezbollah distance themselves from bin Laden.

Al Qaede's support is strong where poverty and injustice flourish. They represent a pride in Nationalism. The best way to defeat al Qaeda is through intelligence operatives, just like the FBI's war on organized crime, and work for justice and economic prosperity for all.

To get out of Iraq all we have to do is pack up and leave. The war was based on lies, there are no WMD. There will be a civil war whether we stay or leave, one is occurring right now. The best thing we need to do is work with the UN and neighboring countries to rebuild the Iraqi society and work towards peace and justice for all Iraqis.

Bush is after the oil and carving up Iraq, and the region for profits and corporation globalization. One of the first things Paul Bremer did after the fall of Baghdad was rewrite the Iraqi Constitution to open up the oil, the resources and industries to outside corporate control.

Leaving is not an option for Bush. That's why he and his band of cronies tie the Iraq war to the war against "terror" and this is an endless war with an enemy with no face and no end. It enables them to destroy our rights and create their police state to crush dissent, turn the country into sweatshop labor for corporate control and keep an endless war and endless stream of profits for the corporate military industrial complex.
With its gold-plated faucets and bidets, marble-covered walls and man-made waterfalls, some of Saddam Hussein’s palaces have proven just as lavish as many imagined.

But experts in Islamic and Middle Eastern architecture say the structures are not much more than displays of tawdry ostentation — and bear little resemblance to the classic, majestic palaces of the past.

"They all seem like Marriott gone crazy, with gold fixtures, imitation Louis XIV furniture and lots of marble everywhere," said Andras Riedlmayer, a bibliographer in Islamic art at Harvard’s Fine Arts Library. "It’s the same general standard of taste as Las Vegas casinos."

And almost as expensive. A 1999 State Department study reported Saddam’s regime had spent $2.2 billion building about 48 palaces since the 1991 Gulf War. Some estimates put the total number of palaces between 70 and 80.
If you haven't been following this you missed the real story.

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june05/volcker_2-03.htm
The oil for food program, begun in 1996, came under sharp criticism today. It originally was intended to help Iraqis suffering from international sanctions. The program let Iraq sell oil to buy food and medicine and thus ease the effects of the economic and trade sanctions, all the while under the watchful eye of the United Nations.

But then, after the Iraq War in November 2003, the $60 billion program came to an abrupt halt. And documents were uncovered renewing concerns about just how closely the eyes of the U.N. had been monitoring it.

Among the charges: that Saddam Hussein put surcharges on oil sales and then pocketed the money. The investigation, commissioned by the U.N. Security Council and headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, found the program was "tainted" from top to bottom and riddled with fraud.

Benon SevanSome of the findings were: the procurement process was marred by political considerations and did not follow U.N. guidelines. And the audit process was under funded and undermanned. The report went on to say the director of the program, Benon Sevan, had "seriously undermined the integrity of the U.N.," in choosing which contractors were able to purchase the oil. Sevan has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

The full report, due later this year, will address several issues, including the involvement of Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his son, Kojo. Kojo Annan was employed by a Swiss company also under investigation for its role in the program.
http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/cat_saddam_and_ministers.html

September 18, 2004 -- WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein used the U.N. oil-for-food program to illegally import thousands of gallons of Johnnie Walker whiskey in order to keep his elite Republican Guard happy, according to a new report.

Fox News Channel, in a special report scheduled to air tomorrow night, quotes a U.N. whistleblower as revealing that Saddam was importing the expensive Scotch in the guise of humanitarian supplies right under the noses of U.N. inspectors.

"The Republican Guards had to be kept in good moods and they were so sophisticated in this regard that he couldn't supply them with cheap whiskey from the Far East," said Paul Conlon, who was fired in 1995 from the U.N. Sanctions Committee.

"He actually had to buy Johnnie Walker and export it via a supplier of various things to his son Uday," Conlon told Fox.

Conlon added the Scotch was probably disguised as chemicals needed for various humanitarian projects.
As to Christians, I was referring to Chaldeans and Assyrian Christians who were the inhabitants long before the muslims invaded and took over.

As Archaeology magazine is one of my favorite reads, I'm quite familiar with the early history of the Sumarian city states. Really like a couple of recipes translated from Ur-D cuneiform..

And, having walked the halls of a couple of the palaces, I can atest to the combination of opulence and tackiness.
Last edited by interventor
From a UN Oil for Food report dated 2 March 1999, "Humanitarian supplies continued to arrive at the three land entry points and at Iraq's port of Umm Qasr. In addition to food and medicine, arrivals included: examination copybooks, chlorine gas, tractors, wheel chairs, tyres, trucks, diesel generators, paper for offset printing, spare parts for water treatment plants and spares for power plants."

/www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/latest/wu990302.html

Don't believe just you leftwing blogs - note: Chlorine for water treatment.
Mistakes after mistakes, I really believe that Pres. Bush believed the intel he recieved to be correct. After knowing what we do now,it's more of a how do we fix this mess we have caused? I think we have a moral responceability to allow
the Iraq's to have a stable government in place. Then we can 'cut and run' But let us not leave without a stabile Gov. in place. Thats the least we can do with all the harm we have done.
quote:
Originally posted by themax:
Mistakes after mistakes, I really believe that Pres. Bush believed the intel he recieved to be correct. After knowing what we do now,it's more of a how do we fix this mess we have caused? I think we have a moral responceability to allow
the Iraq's to have a stable government in place. Then we can 'cut and run' But let us not leave without a stabile Gov. in place. Thats the least we can do with all the harm we have done.


Max, I'm afraid this mess cannot be fixed. Thats the problem.
I believe there are 3 options"
1> Bush's plan--Stay the course= Keep a standing occupatin fource there to get shot at and hope for a miricle.
2> Bomb hell outta them. Kill all the men, sell the women and children into slavery. Take their oil. Plow up their farmland and put down salt.
3> Get out- just leave. Maybe keep a fource on the parimeter to try to keep the chaos from spreading, but just let them have at the killing each other they love so much.
Remember this: They well NEVER have peace until they learn to love their children more than they hate their enemy.
Bush should conciede that the oil is theirs and not ours and quit trying to steal it.
Everything I posted can be backed up by UN reports and credble news sources. Right now most of my information is in an old computer and it will take me a little time and research to find them again. I happen to have a heavy work schedule and personal matters this weekend but I will get to it. I am already late for work.

I found the reports through the UN site and anyone can read the reports for themselves if they do the research.

I have followed the sanctions through the independent press all through the 1990's, before I even had computer. They followed in close detail what was happening while the corporate media never mentioned it at all. Except by the late 1990's pressure was mounting and 60's minutes did a gloss over job. Yet they still did get Madeline Albright to admit they were aware of the situation and that Saddam was so evil "It was worth the price". She never denied any information or that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths.

The alternative press relied on UN officials and reports as well the foreign media. Kathy Kelly formed an organization called "Voices in the Wilderness" that went to Iraq and monitored the situation themselves. They faced prosecution on their return but she is still active in the anti war movement. She has a book out on it but I can't recall the title right now.

What I found is what I have stated in my previous post that the US knew all along what was happening and it was part of a planned strategy. The sanctions targeted the civilians and the water treatment plants. There is even a name for it. They always title all these plans with some clever devious and misleading name.

Yes, Saddam was corrupt and to abuse the Food for Oil program but the US did sit on the UN council that monitored the program and was aware of what was happening. The facts are hidden from the America people because they know the American people would not support these types of war crimes. Just like they lied about WMD and the corporate media was their PR.

They knew the truth would come out eventually so they allowed the corruption to go on to use as a cover to deflect and distract from their guilt and the corporate media once again did it's job of misinforming the American people.

I believe two UN officials who where in charge of the program resigned over what they saw as war crimes and lobbied hard to have the sanctions ended. I can't recall exactly how to spell their names.
quote:

Yes it is a center -- usurped from the Christians who are now a minority in their own land And only about 38 jews still exist in Baghdad. The rest were driven out. A jewish lady persuaded Saddam's mother not to get an abortion, after abandonment by her husband.


It was hardly usurped. War has always been about takeover. The land was taken by rite (not right) of war. If you're for giving that land back, then you ought to give your land back to the ancestors of native Americans.

As for the the whole Saddam's mother story: can you back that up? I'd not heard that one. It's a cool story if it's true, but it sounds like one of those ignorant e-mails in the annals of faxlore.
quote:
Originally posted by one who posts:
quote:

Yes it is a center -- usurped from the Christians who are now a minority in their own land And only about 38 jews still exist in Baghdad. The rest were driven out. A jewish lady persuaded Saddam's mother not to get an abortion, after abandonment by her husband.


It was hardly usurped. War has always been about takeover. The land was taken by rite (not right) of war. If you're for giving that land back, then you ought to give your land back to the ancestors of native Americans.

As for the the whole Saddam's mother story: can you back that up? I'd not heard that one. It's a cool story if it's true, but it sounds like one of those ignorant e-mails in the annals of faxlore.
I don't know where the quote you responded to came from, so be aware that is what I am responding to.

Baghdad, Babylon et al, are not Centers of Christian or Jewish Religion. THEY ARE CENTERS OF ISLAMIC RELIGION.

Your position that the Christians were driven out is correct. THEY WERE INVADERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
A lot of people seem to think history began in 1920. The history of humanity did not begin in Europe, The Orient, or the New World. If it began in a single place, it began in Africa.
Next you need to question authority. When a "expert" tells you that Christians were Driven out of the Middle East take a look at the basis for that statement. First, if you live in Iraq, the Middle West is Libya. All the names are given by Europeans. Overland North America is the Farther East than the Far East. They named the region, it stands to reason that they went to the region. If they were not welcome, they are going to say they were driven out. Now, from the viewpoint of an Iraqi today, WE ARE INVADERS. We certainly are not getting the warmest possible welcome, in fact you might say the Iraqis are making it pretty hot for us. We were getting the cold shoulder, so long as we were not shooting them. Why is a Nation of 300 million people, over 230 years old, acting like a pubescent boy who is being studiously ignored by the cute girl in his homeroom?
Bush uses the phrase "War on Terror" to mean whatever he wants it to mean, meanwhile we support terrorist in Iran and right wing Cubans, who also use terrorism.

Shock and Awe killed thousands of civilians, that was also terrorism

Seymour Hersh reported that the US is also supporting various terrorist Sunni groups in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

Israelis aggression, repression, slow ethnic cleansing and stealing land and water against the Palestinians is also terrorism, state sponsored.

A nuclear attack against Iran will result in thousands of deaths of civilians but that doesn't seem to worry Bush about terrorism.

Kidnapping and torturing "suspects" is also terrorism by the state.

Bush's rounding up of immigrants and jailing them whiel they were subjected to beatings and bad treatment is also a form of state terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks Aschrot rounded up thousands of immigranst and not one was foud to have anything to do with terrorism.

Our sanctions against Iraq were aimed at civilians who bore the consequences of them. There was not adequate food or medicine or chlorine to purify water.

They throw the term around and use it only for their own goals.

They have also changed the name to the "Long War." That's a comforting thought right?

We do need to find a better way then losing our rights and living in fear.
Pogo, you have it nailed, an Escaped Convict, in prison for a bombing Is presently in the United States. Luis Posada Carriles, Venezuelan Born terrorist, was convicted of bombing a Cuban Airliner, killing 73 people. He escaped prison and got to the USA.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/sns-ap-cu...dworldnews-headlines
His release, and the refusal of the US government to extradite him to complete his prison term, puts the USA solidly in the group of nations that sponsor and protect terrorists. We invaded Afghanistan on flimsier cause than this one.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×