Al Qaeda Strongest since 9/11

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Everyday the US is over there, it is another easy day of recruiting for the terrorists. I don't know why some of you people don't understand that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289028,00.html

WASHINGTON ? U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded Al Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to rebuild despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal that will be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al Qaeda better positioned to strike the West." The document pays special heed to the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Al Qaeda is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about Al Qaeda's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

The threat assessment comes as the National Intelligence Council is preparing a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being finalized, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis. "Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it would be ready for distribution this summer.

Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about Al Qaeda's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.

Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer timeframe to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that Al Qaeda would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

The new threat assessment puts particular focus on Pakistan, as did Kringen.

"Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he told the House committee. "At the end of the day, when we have had success, it is when you've been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them."

Several European countries ? among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands ? are also highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited Al Qaeda as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The number one enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq, the chief organization for killing innocent Iraqis," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday.

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq. A progress report that the White House is releasing to Congress this week is expected to indicate scant progress on the political and military benchmarks set for Iraq.

The threat assessment says that Al Qaeda stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that Al Qaeda is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

"Being No. 3 in Al Qaeda is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

The counterterror official said the report does not focus on Usama bin Laden, his whereabouts or his role in Al Qaeda. Officials say the network has become more like a "family-oriented" mob organization with leadership roles in cells and other groups being handed from father to son, or cousin to uncle.

Yet bin Laden's whereabouts are still of great interest to intelligence agencies. Although he has not been heard from for some time, Kringen said officials believe he is still alive and living under the protection of tribal leaders in the border area.

Armed Services Committee members expressed frustration that more was not being done to get bin Laden and tamp down activity in the tribal areas. The senior intelligence analysts tried to portray the difficulty of operating in the area, despite a $25 million bounty on the head of bin Laden and his top deputy.

"They are in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to Al Qaeda," Fingar said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy Hippo

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
1st let clear up one issue as some may think this is Fox news report--when it is actually their AP wire feed--whch they run 24/7 --fair and balanced ;)

To think that AQ was same strength one would have to assume

--all the frozen assetts have no effect

--they had open training grounds in Afgan-Pakistan-Yemen-lybia and many other places--yet today they have no sancuaries where they train openly that I am aware of.

---UBL Al-Zarchawi and other leaders are just as effective in seclusion scared to use any communication--as they were jet setting Carte Blanc around the world with get out of jail free card

--the loss of 70% of the top tiered echelon + 1000's of others has had no effect
http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/terroristscorecard/

--prior few Muslim entities fought against them--today we have many new allies that are--Pakistan-Lybia Afgan-yemen-and both elements of Shite and now Sunni's in Iraq.

Somehow I am not convinced :)
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
DTB, you live a delusionary world where you believe once someone is killed they cannot be replaced. If you remove 10 of something but 20 is added to it, would say there was a net gain or do your math skills end at the -10?

100 - 10 + 20 = 110
110 > 100

;) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Happy Hippo

JJ Reddick

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 6, 2006
267
4
0
Orlando
Why go after Iraq? There's LOTS of cheap, high-quality oil.

==========

Bush's Pakistan Paradox

By Robert Scheer
Truthdig.com Tuesday 10 July 2007

As Iraq continues to disintegrate, and our top generals and in-country ambassador predict that U.S. troops will need to die there for decades in order to prevent a full-scale regional blood bath, it is important to recall the reasons why we got into this mess. The marker of what will go down in history as "Bush's folly" is that this idiot of a president invaded a country that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the United States or WMD threats to America while coddling the military junta in Pakistan, which was guilty on both counts.

(For newspaper editors inclined to strike my reference in this syndicated column to our "idiot president" as excessively pejorative, I refer them to one definition of idiot in Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary: "being unable to guard against common dangers and being incapable of learning connected speech.")

(yep, dubya qualifies as, epitomizes an idiot )

Two news stories this week underscore the extreme irrationality and utter moral depravity of the Bush administration in exploiting the 9/11 attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. They both concern Pakistan, the close ally of the Taliban government when Afghanistan hosted Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. And, as opposed to Iraq, Pakistan did have weapons of mass destruction and facilitated their proliferation to "rogue nations." Both examples provide damning evidence that Bush cared not a whit about WMD or about preventing another 9/11-style attack, because the danger of both existed in Pakistan, which he befriended, rather than in Iraq, which he invaded.

The first report details that Pakistan has effectively lifted the minimal house arrest restraints imposed on A.Q. Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb," who presided over the transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The second is a devastating New York Times report that the United States failed to attack an important al-Qaida gathering in Afghanistan at which top terrorist leaders were present, out of fear of alienating Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Recall that Bush boasted in his 2004 presidential debate with Democratic candidate John Kerry that "we busted the A.Q. Khan network," when, in fact, neither Khan nor any of the top ringleaders of his nukes-for-sale operation have ever been brought to trial. Some had to hold high positions in the Pakistani government in order for the shipment of Pakistan's most highly valued nuclear technology to go unimpeded. Perhaps it is for that reason U.S. agents have never been allowed to interview Khan, let alone subject him to the waterboarding torture reserved for those who wouldn't know a nuke if it hit them upside the head.

While American agents still aren't allowed to talk to Khan, an AP reporter had no difficulty interviewing him this week, reporting that the minimal restraints of his house arrest have been lifted. Thus, he is now, echoing that Southwest Airlines commercial, free to move about the country - if not the world. So, Bush did not bust Khan's network, but on the contrary he allowed it to function for years out of fear of embarrassing Musharraf at a time when Bush was cozying up to the dictator who had quickly pardoned Khan of all possible crimes.

Not offending Musharraf also led the Bush administration in 2005 to jettison a planned attack on a high-level al-Qaida gathering in Pakistan that U.S. intelligence had learned of. Bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was in attendance, and the capture of the man thought to be actually running al-Qaida would have allowed Bush to begin making good on his promise to get the perpetrators of 9/11 "dead or alive."

Instead, as The New York Times reported, the mission was abandoned in the final moments, as Navy SEALs in parachute gear sat on C-130 cargo planes, because "it could jeopardize relations with Pakistan." The Times quoted Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, as saying, "The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five-and-a-half years after 9/11, we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahiri to ground."

No wonder that top U.S. officials charged with defeating al-Qaida feel frustrated. As the Times reported, "Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its ability to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network."

Heckuva job, Bushie.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Sure, Wayne, the things you mentioned had a detrimental effect against Al Qaida efforts. Evidently, there is just as much evidence to suggest the decisions made by this administration has allowed them the ability to continue on their path of destruction to our ideals and way of life. Not to mention whatever allies we have. The single largest reason we are probably at as much risk as before 9-11 - or at plenty of risk, or whatever verbiage you prefer - is because we pulled out so much firepower from the exact area where the resurgence is going on to go fight a war in Iraq.

And for all the positivity you still try to claim about this administration, this remains their problem, and their fault. No matter how much you and they try to deflect from it, it is undeniable for a vast majority of REALISTS in the world.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bush' own boys believe this is the case. For get the slanted fox network.
But it can't be true. We spent over 700 billion to wipe em out they must be all gone by know. Remember Cheney said they were in Iraq. Dumb ass still thinks most are.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The thing that is really sticking in my craw about all of this is to sit and listen to cuts from the press conference today...as long as his people are talking about how dangerous the enemy is, or they are trying to keep fear as a voting motivator for republicans, there is no denial of that message. Anyone who feels differently is unpatriotic or weak on terror.

Now, that ANYONE outside the administration or Fox News talks about how things are so dangerous because of the enemy or because of the decisions the administration has made, then the situation is not as bad as it's made out to be.

And then we have the Gardenweasels of the world force-feeding us to wait until the sitting general in charge tells us how well the mission he is in charge of is going. Of course the former 7 or so generals in the field - who are no longer responsible for spinning things positive to protect themselves or the administration - are in unison on how bad things have been, still are, and realistically will be.

Here is my prediction, we'll see how it goes. The sitting general comes back with a progress report saying we are making some progress somewhere, we need more time, money, firepower, etc., for the surge to work. Prior to that, when Congress takes the month off in August, he will send even more troops and money into the country when there is nothing to stop him. Why? Because he can, for one, and to help affect a more positive spin by a general who will probably tell a different story when he is no longer responsible for a progress report on the surge he is directly responsible for.

Let's see how close I come to being right.
 

Happy Hippo

Registered
Forum Member
Mar 2, 2006
4,794
120
0
It is much the same for Taliban recruiting in Afghanistan. An interesting article that talks about how damaging the western presence is in that country, as we kill civilians and disrupt civil rights. Much of what is happening there can be applied on a grander scale to what we are doing in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war.

Fatal errors in Afghanistan
Jun 21st 2007, The Economist

Too few soldiers and too much bombing from the air is damaging the American-led campaign



PERHAPS it is carelessness or perhaps it is just a spell of bad luck. Either way, the spate of Afghan civilian deaths caused by Western forces is as dangerous as the most callous of Taliban suicide-bombs.

Fighting an insurgency while building a working state from the ruins of Afghanistan was never going to be easy, particularly with a coalition of 37 countries including both battle-hardened Americans and battle-shy Germans. But the allies have hobbled themselves by creating two separate forces?both dominated and led by American generals?that at times work at cross-purposes. One is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO-led operation that does peacekeeping, stabilisation and, for some contingents in the south, counter-insurgency against the Taliban. A more obscure group, now called Combined Joint Task Force 82, consists of special forces and elite infantry who hunt Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders under America's Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The differences can be blurry. The two forces are supposed to co-ordinate their activity, and have some ?dual-hatted? officers serving in both. Both groups have killed civilians, but many of the most controversial incidents?such as the death of seven children in an air strike on an alleged al-Qaeda safe house in Paktika province on June 17th?are the responsibility of OEF.


How to undermine your friends
A joint effort last month led to the death of the Taliban military commander, Mullah Dadullah. But local ISAF commanders complain that, unbeknownst to them, OEF troops often operate in their areas and undermine their work. Whatever the truth of this, everybody suffers the consequences of mistakes, none more so than the government of President Hamid Karzai. Anti-Western riots have started to break out. The Afghan leader, who is protected by Western forces, complained in May that civilian deaths and arbitrary searches of people's homes had reached an unacceptable level. Despite abject apologies from the allies, the ?mistakes? go on.


When confronted with a foe that hides among civilians, whether by consent or by intimidation, no amount of care will eliminate the death of innocents. But Western countries must do better, or risk losing support and moving the spotlight away from Taliban atrocities and war crimes.

Under America's new counter-insurgency doctrine, ?unity of effort? is the essential prerequisite for success. Having two separate forces makes little military sense, but it was politically expedient. Many NATO countries, seeing their role as helping to rebuild Afghanistan rather than fighting the Taliban, do not want to be too closely associated with America's more aggressive tactics in the ?global war on terror?. America, for its part, is reluctant to place its warriors too firmly under the control of wishy-washy Europeans.

Neither side is wholly wrong. The Americans are right that the NATO mission would not survive without their muscle. Last year, when ISAF spread throughout Afghanistan and found itself in a war with the Taliban it had not expected, OEF came to its rescue. But the Europeans are right that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cannot be defeated only, or even mainly, by firepower. The two forces should be merged, but if that proves impossible, it should be made clear that ISAF has primacy, and should have oversight over OEF actions. More important, the aim of military operations should be to protect the civilian population and win its trust, not to kill as many insurgents as possible. Strikes against even ?high-value targets? should be aborted if there is a serious risk of ordinary Afghans dying. Targets will re-appear; lost goodwill is harder to win back.

Unity of effort requires much more than rejigging command structures; it is about managing the complexity of nation-building. The problem is not just the strength of the Taliban, but also the weakness of the Afghan government, and disillusionment with corruption and slow reconstruction.

On top of this, Western and Afghan forces are too thinly stretched. Afghanistan is larger in size and population than Iraq, but has a fraction of the soldiers and police. Without enough forces on the ground, Western commanders have relied more heavily on bombing from the air, endangering more civilians. Reducing Afghan deaths will require, for some years to come, putting more Western soldiers in harm's way.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
DTB, you live a delusionary world where you believe once someone is killed they cannot be replaced. If you remove 10 of something but 20 is added to it, would say there was a net gain or do your math skills end at the -10?

100 - 10 + 20 = 110
110 > 100

;) :)

Delusionary is thinking they weren't recruiting before we went to Iraq--AR inforn your son please that 911 occurred before we invaded Iraq.

--and speaking of recruiting-- maybe you'd like to explain the reason for our homegrown muslim recruits--Yep I know another coincidence ;)
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
mj-attackgraph.jpg


terrorism_attacks_fatalitie.gif


DTB, you have what is quickly becoming a fatal case of head up your ass.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Jabbers --and where does this graph come from--and are they counting those in iraq/afgan during war since they say world wide??

Who can tell from your liberal sources--you see graph with words above it and think its gospel :)

--and wonder where you get the coolaide crowd tag.

Why don't you put something up you can verify--like attacks on U.S. bases -territory-and U.S. soil
-prior to invading Iraq and after---yea I know--you'll pass again as usual.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Colin Powell, and countless other respected generals are openly saying that this invasion was a mistake that is feeding terrorism and will result in unmitigated civil war, and I drank the coolaide? Classic. Yeah, don't worry DTB, its just those liberal bloggers spreading lies. Damn Colin Powell. Just another lying liberal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjfinste

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Excuse me jabbers--but just find source of charts and I'll look in am--I know you probably haven't had time with your blog hunting to know-but the Dow was up about 300 and nasdq about 50 today and I have to do a little hedging as I'll prob be away from computer tomorrow--you keep searching those liberal blogs--and keep those pessimistic vibes flowin ;)
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Yes, DTB - It's a good time to be someone with the luxury to own shares of major companies. That justifies everything. Is that even remotely relevant to this thread?

There is proof that recruitment of terrorists has been on this rise since we invaded Iraq. There is proof that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. There is proof that Iraq was previously NOT a haven of Al Qaeda, but now it is. Despite all this proof you cannot admit there is anything flawed with the strategy we've taken.

All you ever do is gloat about your investments - as if the entire rest of the nation has that same ability. The millions of $15,000 a year people that you hate (and happen to be a reason those companies have such a profitable bottom line)don't have this luxury. Nobody expects you to agree with them, but at least don't be such a spinning jackass about every little thing.:) ;)
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Yeah, I know the Dow had a good day and I am happy about it. Made a little cake today. The study comes from MotherJones and was cited by CNN this morning. I didn't spend any time searching liberal blogs to find it. DTB, I love America and I am a free market capitalist at heart. This has nothing to do with pessimism or hating America. Quite the contrary. This is about what is best for us and recognizing what a moronic mistake we have made. Unfortunately our current President isn't half the man his father was and he has sent us all down a futile path of destruction.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,585
233
63
"the bunker"
DTB, you live a delusionary world where you believe once someone is killed they cannot be replaced. If you remove 10 of something but 20 is added to it, would say there was a net gain or do your math skills end at the -10?

100 - 10 + 20 = 110
110 > 100

;) :)

i wonder if one of those "intelligence analysts" was valerie plame?........lol

the cia and the various intelligence agencies have their own agendas....they`re just as polarized and politicized as we are on this forum....

to say they`re as strong...after losing afghanistan,having their funding circumvented etc is more than a stretch...

they certainly are having a rough time hurting us since 9/11....

smurph....i saw your "turkey" thread.....so i guess you understand why leaving isn`t in our best interests...or the best intersests of the region....

iraq and the surrounding region would almost certainly be even bloodier and more chaotic after americans leave....

there would be reprisals against those who worked with american forces, further ethnic cleansing, genocide......

potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit jordan and syria......

iran and turkey will make power grabs.....

""Critics called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a change in command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops. But now that we have a new secretary, a new command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops, suddenly we have a renewed demand for withdrawal before the agreed-upon September accounting—suggesting that the only constant in such harping was the assumption that Iraq was either hopeless or not worth the effort.""

dtb..bottom line.......the left is INVESTED in our defeat in iraq......how else will they win in 2008?....

if the republican strategy via the surge works, the left loses. ...the dems must see our guys defeated in order to gain power.....they have painted themselves into a corner. ..and the msm is furthering the agenda of the democratic party....

i know you all are shocked to hear me saying this....lol


here...look around the world...just the last few days.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/ap_on_re_mi_ea/algeria_bombing

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3424270,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070711/wl_asia_afp/philippinesitalykidnap_070711102357


http://news.yahoo.com/s/af
p/20070711/wl_asia_afp/thailandsouthunrest

you guys may want us to quit in iraq....along with al zawahiri.....the only problem is,they aren`t quitting no matter what WE do....

you think iraq is a recruiting tool?....how much of a recruiting tool would our defeat in iraq be?.....

al zawahiri...in his own words..has said that "iraq is the primary front in his efforts to attack the united states and its interests"...



.not fighting them is out of the question..... and surrendering iraq to them is utterly insane.....
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Weasel, your partisinship is turning you into a bit of a tard. This has nothing to do with the left invested in defeat to win power. This has to with the realities of the situation. Care to respond to Colin Powell's recent comments?

?It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.? All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put ?a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew?.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhatsHisNuts

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Al-Qaeda has NO chance of gaining a serious foothold in Iraq. Ever.

And to think that they can ever take over the country or be even moderatlely relevant is beyond ignorant.

Weasel, what the few people like you and Wayne still don't understand is that Al-Qaeda is NOT the problem in Iraq in regards to security, either now, and it won't be the main problem when we leave, whether it's tomorrow or in ten years. Not even close.

Those 453 deaths by execution style corpses found last month were not the work of Al-Qaeda. And that was down from the previous month! You know it and I know it. Not Al-Qaeda.

Iraq has a problem that can't be solved by 'surges' and other such nonsense.

No. Iraq will fall into a civil war more intense than it's already in once we leave, whenever it is and the majority will prevail. Period. That means the shias, that means Iran and that means we set this in motion and caused this.

And for what?

Do you REALLY think there will be a US friendly democracy that comes out of this. How stupid can you possibly be?

God, what was it, 2 weeks ago when Al-Maliki 'strongly condemned' our raid on Al-Sadrs militia and said that it was not authorized by HIM?

How f*cking stupid are we?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I forgot about that condemned remark. And those charts I believe were in USA last week. Easy enough to believe if you been listening and watching t v last 5 years.
In fact Kosar my big fear is. What happens if leader of Pakistan gets taken out. That country with some nut in charge of 100 nukes.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top