 sj |
||
|
||
BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 11 - 06:10 PM The point I'm trying to make is that things are nowhere near as clear-cut as some folks here are trying to make them seem. Lots of folks are just popping off with opinions based on their own prejudices and a distinct lack of any actual knowledge. I'm merely trying to supply some of that knowledge, or at least show that there is INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION to justify some of the assumptions that they are making. The link is to the "60 Minutes" web site, whereby clicking on the appropriate buttons allows one to listen to and watch the interviews again. I tried them and they worked fine for me. Go to the link. Click on one of the three photos on the right side of the page. This will take you to another page. Scroll down a small amount to a photo on the left. Under that photo, click on "Play CBS Video." Wait for a few seconds and the interview begins. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 16 May 11 - 06:44 PM "Lots of folks are just popping off with opinions based on their own prejudices and a distinct lack of any actual knowledge. I'm merely trying to supply some of that knowledge," so t seems that you believe that other posters here either have NO sources from which they are forming their opinions (or, at least those opinions which you object to) or that YOUR source is somehow much superior to theirs. I'm not sure which, but seeing as I a) have done my homework from multiple sources, and b) I'm seemingly expected to sit through sixty minutes of something with no explanation as to *what* it actually contains, I'm not about to try to disabuse you of your incorrect presumptions.. I should probably sing Rule Britannia, while flogging a poor chimney sweep, and drinking a cup of Earl Grey from a china cup right about now then.. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 11 - 07:00 PM DAMN!! I am not saying that at all, lively! I bloody give up!! Some of you folks are trying to turn this into a US versus UK donnybrook. WATCH THE FRIGGIN' VIDEOS! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger Date: 16 May 11 - 07:11 PM The frat party in New York was disgusting. Let's end these meaningless wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Iraq and then we'll really have something to celebrate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 16 May 11 - 07:58 PM "I should probably sing Rule Britannia, while flogging a poor chimney sweep, and drinking a cup of Earl Grey from a china cup right about now then.." Whatever turns your crank, lively. The three interviews were aired on CBS's "60 Minutes" news magazine last night. The first interview is with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who talks about current US policy in Afghanistan. The second is with Amrullah Saleh, who four years ago told Pakistan's president that bin Laden was living in that very area. Yet, Pakistan's president did nothing about it while assuring the United States that he was cooperating. Was he afraid of losing the billions in foreign aid the US was sending to Pakistan while secretly aiding bin Laden? The third interview does not relate to the other two. It deals with a dangerous, self-styled anarchist "militia." Not unlike Neo-Nazis. I, too, "have done my homework from multiple sources." Too much trouble for some folks on this thread. They would much rather (speaking of John Wayne) just shoot from the hip. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 16 May 11 - 10:42 PM Very enlightening interview with Amrullah Saleh from your link, Don. This bit may be of particular interest to Richard Bridge who seems to be a tad uninformed as to the nature of politics in Pakistan. "Saleh says he confronted former President Pervez Musharraf back in 2007. He told him Afghan intelligence believed bin Laden was in the Pakistani city of Mansehra. Saleh told us Musharraf was so offended that he lunged at him, and that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had to intervene. It turns out Mansehra is just 12 miles from where bin Laden was eventually found." Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/13/60minutes/main20062650.shtml#ixzz1MZcx41Sm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 17 May 11 - 06:08 AM ""Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth - PM Date: 16 May 11 - 02:55 PM Okay, Don T., I stand by what I have written. You and a couple of other people are all pissed off at the United States for taking out the man who is responsible for the senseless murder of God knows how many thousands of innocent people (INCLUDING British citizens). Having done a re-evaluation, I'll say it flat out! What are you doing OTHER THAN sympathizing with the terrorists? If that upsets you, go take a good look in a mirror! Don Firth"" Thank you Mr Firth for confirming my statements about your intentional twisting of anything I say on this subject. Now everybody can see that you have indeed altered ""I am not concerned about the death of ObL, but about the manner of its execution, and the (still arguably illegal) nature of the incursion with its implicit ignoring of the possibility of loss of innocent life, and according to some sources a willingness to kill innocent civilians if deemed necessary."" to ""You and a couple of other people are all pissed off at the United States for taking out the man who is responsible for the senseless murder of God knows how many thousands of innocent people (INCLUDING British citizens)."" You demanded that I show where you have twisted my words. Now I'd like you to find just one post of mine which expresses any sympathy for Osama Bin Laden, or says that he did not deserve to die. Once you have failed to find any such, I believe I am owed an apology, but I'm pretty sure you are not man enough for that, so once again I'm out of here and will return only if you tell more LIES about me otr my motives. Don T. PS Bobad go screw yourself. Everybody knows where your sympathies lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 May 11 - 06:38 AM Andrew e, Great choice of music and artists! Here is another from Chloe, somewhat related. ...even though some won't get it... There are two, in the group, who have been WONDERFUL, close friends, and truly inspirational, specially with musical input! This one is from one of those: ....for what its worth...a great song/prayer for protection GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 17 May 11 - 07:23 AM "PS Bobad go screw yourself. Everybody knows where your sympathies lie." You've got that right, unlike yours they lie with the victims of terrorists not with the terrorists. Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 15 May 11 - 06:20 AM "I will simply leave (and I don't come back again, when I say that)." Ha! Ha! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Date: 17 May 11 - 09:53 AM Hmmmm. Looks like bobad is chanelling Richard Nixon ....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 17 May 11 - 01:17 PM From the BBC (if your interested, or not completely biased as to what some of us are advocating to the debate in this thread) OBL's killing may set a precedent biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 17 May 11 - 02:34 PM They also found a "stash of pornography"??? I hope the chicks had their faces covered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 11 - 02:48 PM Don T., your sympathy for bin Laden and his pack of bully-boys is IMPLICIT in what you have said all along. I have pointed out several times that any country (including, when and if the time comes, the U. K.) has the legal right of "hot pursuit" into another sovereign, and for that matter, neutral country to go after criminals, terrorists, or other hostiles fleeing to or hiding out in that country. This is recognized in international law, and the precedent goes back to the days when a pursued pirate ship would try to elude its pursuers by sailing into a "neutral harbor." The neutral country may not like it, but the incursion was often preferable to being thought of as in collusion with the pirates and hence, culpable as well. I (and I'm far from alone in this) see this as exactly parallel to the legality of the U. S. Navy Seals raid. As to taking bin Laden alive and bringing him to trial, one of the scenarios that was deemed quite likely was that bin Laden's followers might very well take innocent hostages or just operate at random with the threat of killing, say, twenty civilians for each day bin Laden is held captive pending trial unless he is released immediately. And of unleashing a campaign of mass murder of innocents if he is found guilty and executed. There is no question of bin Laden's guilt. Not only is there more than ample evidence, but HE has proudly said that he's responsible. So, this way, no muss, no fuss. And it sends a graphic message to anyone who may wish to replace or emulate him. "Sooner or later, you will meet that same fate." Even if the way the matter was handled does offend your delicate sensibilities. One does not have to say something in so many specific words, Don T., to make it bloody obvious that THAT is where your sympathies lie. So YOU are the one who owes ME an apology. Are YOU man enough? Don Firth P. S. Just as a point, as I mention above ("hot pursuit"). As to the BBC article biLL linked to just above, the precedent has already been set. Some centuries ago, AND it is in the body of International Law. Not to be used willy-nilly, but when all else fails. OR when the supposedly neutral or friendly country is, in reality but surreptitiously, offering "safe harbor" to the fugitives. And that IS a strong suspicion in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 17 May 11 - 03:08 PM Good 'ol Amerikan porn, a big $cahs$ industry ...... but who really gives a rat's ass if he was into porn or stuffed toys. now ... let's stay with the issues that really matter ... biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: bobad Date: 17 May 11 - 03:18 PM I hear there may have been donkeys involved but it's just a rumour being spread by some ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 17 May 11 - 04:04 PM Well ... there ya go ... some ass has slandered the good natured reputation of donkeys. Geeeeezuz H. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 11 - 04:10 PM FYI Cross-Border ManhuntsDon Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 17 May 11 - 07:13 PM "Still on the topic of Argentina, which has always claimed the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands as part of its sovereign territory, the United Kingdom went there in 1982, snatching it back from Argentine occupation because its residents were overwhelmingly loyal to Britain." Err yes, the 'incursion' was that of Argentinia, which is why the piece correctly states that the island was being "occupied" by Argentinia (despite claims of sovereignty). What a peculiar example to give. Otherwise it seems the biggest fans of such incursions are the US & Israel, and the KGB, and some fascists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 17 May 11 - 07:34 PM "IRA never deliberately caused indiscriminate killings of civilians, though they were often culpably careless of whether a few civilians died or not" You are joking aren't you?? Then again perhaps you didn't have to live through "Bloody Friday" where they deliberately and indiscriminately attacked civilians in the centre of Belfast (What was it again 22 bombs in the space of 80 minutes) For each location, first bomb warning called in, second bomb placed at the spot people were directed to as a safe muster point. 22 actual bombs with a number of hoax's called in all with the intent of overwhelming the emergency services. Never deliberately caused indiscriminate killings of civilians - my arse. The fact that only 6 civilians died and 130 were injured stands as testament to the magnificent work done on the 21st July 1972 by the Security and Emergency Services at work in Belfast that day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 17 May 11 - 07:37 PM "According to CNN, Pakistan has lost more troops in Afghanistan than has the U.S." Yes but they died fighting for the Taleban. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest (Tommy) Date: 17 May 11 - 07:41 PM "The issue here is whether what was done was an act of legitimate self-defence," said Benjamin Ferencz, an international law specialist who served as a prosecutor during the Nuremburg trials and argued that it would have been better to capture Bin Laden and send him to court. "Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law," he told the BBC World Service. Like Mr Ferencz, British law professor Philippe Sands QC says it is impossible to make a definitive legal judgement without knowing precisely what happened. But he says the case for the raid's legality has been weakened. The raid to kill Bin Laden took place at a villa in the town of Abbottabad "The question to ask is: were the measures taken in the actual situation that pertained reasonable and proportionate, given the circumstances in which the [Navy Seals] found themselves?" he told the BBC. "The facts for Bin Laden don't appear to easily meet that standard. "As a matter of international law, one country is not free to enter another country apparently without the authorisation of that country, and intervene, whether to kidnap or kill a national of a third state," Mr Sands said. He acknowledged that under what is known as the doctrine of necessity, where there is an "overriding threat to national security", such an act might not give rise to responsibility or liability. But he said the difficulty with that argument was that it comes against a background of a rise in extrajudicial killings, including through the use of drones, and that this was not a "lawful direction to be taking". The logical conclusion of any idea that Bin Laden could be killed as an enemy combatant was "that anyone associated with al-Qaeda in any country in the world can be taken out, can be executed," Mr Sands said. "I think it's deeply troubling if we are indeed moving to a place where you can have a global assassination policy for those who are perceived to cause trouble," he added. "In certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort... including in operations against terrorists," they said in statement. "However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment," they added. "Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances." Source BBC News Aidan Lewis Tommy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 17 May 11 - 07:54 PM "Otherwise it seems the biggest fans of such incursions are the US & Israel, and the KGB, and some fascists." Examples would be nice. What fascists? (Hitler and Mussolini didn't launch "incursions," they simply invaded.) I don't know about the "KGB" either (Hungary and Czechoslovakia didn't involve the hot pursuit of terrorists), but the US and Israel have been among the most frequent targets. So of course they strike back more often than...who? Do we know that much about local conflicts in the Third World? I know I don't. What about the Ho Chi Minh trail? Not just a temporary incursion, a years-long occupation by North Vietnam of two neutral nations unable to defend their borders. The lesson is that any nation will take advantage of any other nation if it feels strongly enough that it needs to and believes it can get away with it. The second is that, regardless of the first point, the weight of legal opinion everywhere is that the US acted legally under international law in raiding Bin Laden's compound. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 17 May 11 - 08:27 PM Otherwise, [according to Don Firth's list] it seems the biggest fans of such incursions are the US & Israel, and the KGB, and some fascists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 11 - 11:32 PM Not my list, lively. In order not to "cherry-pick" paragraphs that only supported my position (as some folks are wont to do), I quoted Peter Beeching's entire article, and it was in that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 May 11 - 02:44 AM Teribus, I think you know that I remember Bloody Friday. Coded warnings rendered useless by numerous coded hoax warnings. (We are seeing coded hoaxes again from the dissidents.) The revulsion created by that did the Republicans a lot of harm and they did nothing like it again. Innocent deaths tended to be reckless incompetence thereafter, while AL Q supporters are only interested in a big body count of innocent people and even children. Also there are no negotiables with Al Q. Without defending IRA, they are different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 May 11 - 05:39 AM Keith A of Hertford: "Without defending IRA, they are different." Yes they are. You are correct. One wants to be a separate, independent state, free from Britain, with it's own borders and boundaries... and the other wants to exterminate all those who don't accept their religion....even IF you sympathize WITH them, and/or support their 'cause'!...and anywhere on the planet. This 'war' is NOT like any model, found in recent history, of civilized people..except Nazi Germany's fixation on the 'Final Solution' to the Jewish population..first in Germany, then onto other countries, other than its own, beyond its own borders. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 18 May 11 - 09:58 AM Just to let everyone know .... since I started this thread don't worry about drifting off it's subject .... in fact you can argue about anything ... IRA, WWII, WWIII, the legal system (domestic or international), porn and it's link to terrorists, the assination of JFK, or should Dominique Strauss-Kahn be held without bail. go to it, keep the arguments and debating on the go ... I just ask that you refrain from personal attacks and name calling. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 18 May 11 - 02:40 PM sIx... "who really gives a rat's ass if he was into porn or stuffed toys." He was fuckin stuffed toys? Sick bastard deserved what he got! I was makin a joke in the last post... this one too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 May 11 - 05:27 PM What do you think he 'felt better' with...a good porn session, or another report of a successful suicide bomber?????.....and that is supposed to cause us to 'appreciate' his life more? He's the one who showed disregard for life, in general, either his own, the TENS OF THOUSANDS of lives that were lost at his command, his family, or the victims of the war he was waging on anyone who disagreed with his interpretation of the Qur'an?..I guess he was REALLY into the Qu'ran to be jerking off, between various death success reports! Hands crossed over my breast, with starry eyd glassed stare, "My-y-y-y Hero!!!" Get over it, nincompoops!!...Some people are just begging to taken out of the gene pool!!!!...and probably so is Mother Nature!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 18 May 11 - 08:45 PM My guess is that the porn more likely belonged to his son or one of the two "couriers." Unless they found Viagra too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 May 11 - 09:30 PM Only his hairdresser knows for sure.... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Date: 19 May 11 - 07:56 AM No, I just checked and I really don't miss him. And I could care less about his alleged personal preferences, with the exception of those which killed and maimed thousands across the world. Charley Noble, judge and jury for all international terrorists |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 19 May 11 - 08:18 AM I don't think there is anyone who has posted to this thread (including myself) who would say they miss OBL, or (for gawd's sake) consider him a hero .... and I think we all agree, he was a man of vilolence and evil. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Greg F. Date: 19 May 11 - 08:55 AM Charley Noble, judge and jury for all international terrorists Does that include the CIA, Charlie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 May 11 - 08:54 PM biLL: "I don't think there is anyone who has posted to this thread (including myself) who would say they miss OBL, or (for gawd's sake) consider him a hero .... and I think we all agree, he was a man of vilolence and evil." You might have well chronicled the first thing that ALL Mudcatters actually agree upon!!!!! Well sakes alive!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Charley Noble Date: 19 May 11 - 09:01 PM The CIA's has been on the top of my list as a terrorist organization for years. Of course they're "our terrorists." Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Guest (Tommy) Date: 20 May 11 - 06:16 AM "You might have well chronicled the first thing that ALL Mudcatters actually agree upon!!!!!" Not according to Don F Tommy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,lively Date: 20 May 11 - 06:54 AM "Tommy" if I am not mistaken, I believe some of the quotes that you cited in your prior post, were taken from a UN statement requesting full disclosure from the US of preparatory plans for the mission? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,Lighter Date: 20 May 11 - 09:02 AM My reading of both Wikipedia and history is that while the CIA can get nasty, it is not a "terrorist organization" according to international understanding and usage of that term. Assuming that inconvenient but basic distinctions still matter around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Silas Date: 20 May 11 - 09:36 AM Well what would you call an organisation that kidnaps people, holds them for years without charges or trial and tortures them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 20 May 11 - 09:51 AM I agree Silas .... especially when that certain organzion flies them to such countries as Syria (yes Syria), Egypt and Algeria to be tortured .... whew, I dunno about you guys, just the thought of that terrorizes me. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Don Firth Date: 20 May 11 - 02:33 PM From a newsletter I received in this morning's e-mail – from an organization call Human Rights First. News of Bin Laden's death wasn't even a day old when Dick Cheney and his allies started claiming torture "worked."For your information. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 29 May 11 - 04:47 PM http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cia-officers-deaths-kept-secret-13-years-among-050113178.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Stringsinger Date: 29 May 11 - 07:12 PM Obama made a serious mistake in assassinating bin Laden. 1. He made him a martyr in certain parts of the middle east. 2. He violated the "war powers act" by not consulting with the whole body of Congress. 3. He had the opportunity to capture bin Laden alive and have him tried internationally in a court of law (ala the Nurenberg Trials) and the result would have been that the world could have seen justice done and the American jurisprudence at work. 4. Noam Chomsky says that his being gone is not such a point of interest with many in the Mid-East countries. It's only big in America where many misguided citizens are big on revenge over justice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Date: 29 May 11 - 08:22 PM Bin Laden is a martyr only to those who loved him while he was alive. Others either feared, disdained him, him or don't much care. The 1973 War Powers Act does not require consultation with Congress before the fact. It does require the President to advise Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action. Which Obama did. As far as anyone can know, had OBL surrendered he'd be alive today. Don't think so? Your privilege. Because of point one, Noam Chomsky's opinion has little bearing on the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Bill D Date: 29 May 11 - 08:59 PM "..... misguided citizens are big on revenge over justice." Awww...c'mon. 'Some' may feel that way, but as I said before, if we had gotten bin Laden 2 DAYS after 9/11, none of this would be relevant. You don't exactly need a trial from someone who bragged and exhulted about his success in 'bringing death to the infidels'. And Lighter has it right...Noam Chomsky is not exactly my choice for sage advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: andrew e Date: 30 May 11 - 05:48 PM http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=26939 http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=27101 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: gnu Date: 30 May 11 - 07:34 PM "assassinating bin Laden" Nope. He was taken out as an enemy and a combatant who clearly voiced his status as so on video. He was not assasinated. He was taken out in an act of war... a war he engaged in wholeheartedly. Never mind all the conspiracy theories. He was taken out as he should have been. Of course, he may actually be living on a tropical isle with Saddam and drinking margaritas and fucking virgins but WE will never know eh wha? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Lighter Date: 31 May 11 - 07:39 AM I can't believe people are still debating this. Pakistan has even returned the wrecked helicopter instead of turning its stealth technology over to the Chinese. That would have been a decided "Gotcha!" Even keeping the wreck for themselves - which would have been justified - would have indicated some displeasure. Of course the US *and* Pakistan might be colluding in a blatant disregard for international law; but since they're the only governments involved and the Hague has shown no interest and the UN thinks it's cool, I believe we can say "Case closed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ??? From: Teribus Date: 31 May 11 - 11:36 AM 900 |
