The "War on Terror "

Located in Fort Benning, Georgia, WHISC has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in the most heinous of counter-insurgency warfare techniques, and its graduates have gone on to comprise a bloody who's who of coups, chaos and destruction.

...Established by the US military in Panama in 1946, WHISC (or School of the Americas/SOA, as it was previously known) was booted out and forced to relocate stateside in 1984. Its graduates have repeatedly been implicated in cases of torture, rape, massacre and assassination, their victims frequently social rights activists and other civilians...

...Bowing to public pressure back home, in 1996 the Pentagon released several of the school's training manuals, detailing a curriculum advocating the use of blackmail, psychological warfare, torture and execution. By 2000, the appalling degree of human rights abuses committed by SOA graduates prompted several in the House of Representatives to try closing the school, but just before the key congressional vote, SOA personnel presented the Department of Defense with a compromise: "Some of your bosses have told us that they can't support anything with the name 'School of the Americas' on it. Our proposal addresses this concern. It changes the name."

How many of the wars in the last 100 years were fought over resources? see Resource Wars

Here are some starter hints:

There is oil near the Phillipines that the Japanese sought to grab in the early 40's and were blockaded by US Navy vessels (yes, some time shortly before Pearl Harbor).

A proposed pipeline runs through Afganistan and to the sea at Karachi, Pakistan.

"A clean shot" was The Washington Post's revolting description of the murder of the al-Qa'ida leaders in Yemen by a US "Predator" unmanned aircraft. With grovelling approval, the US press used Israel's own mendacious description of such murders as a "targeted killing" – and shame on the BBC for parroting the same words on Wednesday. How about a little journalistic freedom here? Like asking why this important al-Qa'ida leader could not have been arrested. Or tried before an open court. Or, at the least, taken to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation.

..."Targeted killing" – courtesy of the Bush administration – is now what the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon can call "legitimate warfare". And Vladimir Putin, too. Now the Russians – I kid thee not, as Captain Queeg said in the Caine Mutiny – are talking about "targeted killing" in their renewed war on Chechnya. After the disastrous "rescue" of the Moscow theatre hostages by the so-called "elite" Russian Alpha Special forces (beware, oh reader, any rescue by "elite" forces, should you be taken hostage), Putin is supported by Bush and Tony Blair in his renewed onslaught against the broken Muslim people of Chechnya.

I'm a cynical critic of the US media, but last month Newsweek ran a brave and brilliant and terrifying report on the Chechen war. In a deeply moving account of Russian cruelty in Chechnya, it recounted a Russian army raid on an unprotected Muslim village. Russian soldiers broke into a civilian home and shot all inside. One of the victims was a Chechen girl. As she lay dying of her wounds, a Russian soldier began to rape her. "Hurry up Kolya," his friend shouted, "while she's still warm."

...Let me quote that very brave Israeli, Mordechai Vanunu, the man who tried to warn the West of Israel's massive nuclear war technology, imprisoned for 12 years of solitary confinement – and betrayed, so it appears, by one Robert Maxwell. In a poem he wrote in confinement, Vanunu said: "I am the clerk, the technician, the mechanic, the driver. They said, Do this, do that, don't look left or right, don't read the text. Don't look at the whole machine. You are only responsible for this one bolt, this one rubber stamp."

Kolya would have understood that. So would the US Air Force officer "flying" the drone which murdered the al-Qa'ida men in Yemen. So would the Israeli pilot who bombed an apartment block in Gaza, killing nine small children as well as well as his Hamas target, an "operation" – that was the description, for God's sake – which Ariel Sharon described as "a great success".

The Pentagon is determined to maintain access to the rapidly growing network of military facilities it has built or refurbished in the Caucasus, South Asia and the Persian Gulf for decades to come, long after George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein have passed from the global stage.

Since September 2001 US forces have built, upgraded or expanded military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan; authorized extended training missions or open-ended troop deployments in Djibouti, the Philippines and the former Soviet republic of Georgia; negotiated access to airfields in Kazakhstan; and engaged in major military exercises, involving thousands of US personnel, in Jordan, Kuwait and India. Thousands of tons of military equipment have been added to stockpiles already pre-positioned in Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf states, including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar. And discussions are still under way with Yemen about increasing American access to facilities there and establishing an intelligence-gathering installation aimed at monitoring activities in Sudan and Somalia. [In all of this, keep in mind the reason terrorists attack Americans - because the US government is messing around in their countries!]

quoting an Iraqi: "If it were up to the people, there would be peace. It's the governments that create war."

...I am a father, and no amount of propaganda can convince me that half a million dead children is acceptable "collateral damage"

...This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.

To the men in Washington, the world is just a giant Monopoly board. Oddly enough, Americans generally know how the government works. The politicians do everything they can for the people - the people who put them in power...

The United States Congress has spoken. Not with a roar, but with a whimper, handing President George W. Bush a blank cheque to go to war against Iraq because of the "imminent threat" it supposedly poses to America. One is reminded of the revolting spectacle of Roman senators groveling at the feet of emperor Tiberius.

The notion of Iraq, a demolished nation of 22.3 million posing an "imminent threat" to the United States, a nation of 281 million, is ludicrous. In fact, anti-Saddam Kurds and southern Shia Muslims comprise 17.7 million, or 79%, of Iraq's population, leaving only 4.6 million Sunnis who more or less support the regime. That's about the population of Hong Kong.

But a steady drumbeat of bellicose propaganda, pressure from powerful special interests thirsting to destroy Iraq, and election year politics have combined to stampede Congress and many Americans into believing this grotesque, Orwellian fiction.

OUR problems will begin after King George the Younger's war against Iraq is concluded. Like all wars, those who profit from it won't die or suffer in it, and those who die or suffer in it won't profit from it.

The United States will win the war. The same country, Iraq, that is presented to the American people as a mortal peril and threat to the United States -- and even the world -- is in reality a Third World country with nothing but obsolete Soviet weapons and a wrecked economy. No matter how bravely the Iraqis fight, they won't be able to win against a superpower and its fifth-rate sidekick, the United Kingdom.

And there we will be, in the ruins of Baghdad, responsible for 22 million souls divided into factions that hate each other, are hated by their neighbors and that all hate us...

Next to King George, the single most enthusiastic and delighted person backing a war against Iraq is Osama bin Laden. He wants a war of Islam against the West, and George Bush, who is not a subtle or sophisticated thinker, is strutting straight into his trap. Rather than making the Middle East safe for oil companies and Israel, as he imagines, Bush will make the world unsafe for Americans.

To paraphrase one of his own macho sayings, he will have started something. Others will finish it.

Sitting on a desk somewhere in the Pentagon is a computer printout listing projected American casualties for a range of Iraq invasion scenarios. Unfortunately, these vital figures are the only numbers that haven't been part of the war debate.

We've heard all kinds of estimates about how much the war is going to cost -- including Ari Fleischer's ultramacho Bullet to Saddam's Head discount special -- how many troops will be deployed, how much the price of oil may go up, and the over-under on how long our forces will have to remain in Iraq. We've been given head counts of Iraq's fractious Kurds and Shiites, reference numbers for security council resolutions defied, and been frequently reminded that Saddam has remained in power for 34 years, 11 of them since the last time we tried to send him and his mustache packing.

But no one in the Bush administration is talking about how many of our soldiers will be sent home in body bags. And not a single reporter has stood up at a press conference -- or at one of the president's countless fundraising appearances -- and asked, "Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?"

When George W. Bush decided, with Britain’s support, last year to take military action against the Taleban and al-Qa’eda, once again painstaking efforts, led principally by Tony Blair, fashioned an international coalition to support that action. There is no possibility whatever of building such a coalition against Saddam today. Any war against Saddam, launched by Bush and supported by Tony Blair, would have the overt support of precisely one other country: Israel. Israel today, in its repression of the Palestinians, has the full support of precisely one other country: the United States.

If the United States were to attack Iraq, it would not only be Arab and Muslim countries that would point to the intellectual, diplomatic and moral incompatibility of an American invasion of Iraq, allegedly for violating United Nations Security Council resolutions, with the United States tolerating, and its defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, actively supporting Israeli violation of UN resolutions forbidding the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Don't you just hate it when the bad guys agree to do what we want them to? If that's not a good reason to go in and take out Saddam, name one.

But our Fearless Leader, not one to be deterred from war merely by getting what he wants, promptly moved the goalposts and issued a new list of demands that Iraq must meet, including paying reparations to Kuwait.

If you step back and look at this debate, it just gets stranger and stranger. For one thing, all the evidence is that the administration has already made up its mind and we're going into Iraq this winter. President Bush went to the United Nations and demanded that it back him; he's going to Congress to demand that it back him; and there it is. This is not a debate -- it's Bush in his "You're either with us or against us" mode. It is not a discussion of whether invading Iraq is either necessary or wise.

...The old problem, of course -- the root of the resentment -- is what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. We are held to be just as responsible as they are by the Arab world. The smart way to go after Saddam is to wait at least until an Arab-Israeli settlement is reached, and that is a do-able deal.

Instead, we've let Ariel Sharon inflame the situation. More settlements on the West Bank -- now there's a genius move. (Naturally, equal credit to the suicide bombers.)

...The most unpleasant and unhelpful aspect of this "debate" is the implication that anyone who expresses serious doubts about this venture is unpatriotic -- and it often comes from the same people who spent eight years eaten alive with Clinton hatred. Being patriotic doesn't mean agreeing with the government. The most fundamental American right is to not agree with the government and to raise Cain about it.

But the real lie in the President's speech – that which has dominated American political discourse since the crimes against humanity on 11 September last year – was the virtual absence of any attempt to explain the real reasons why the United States has found itself under attack.

In his mendacious article in this newspaper last week, President Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, also attempted to mask this reality. The 11 September assault, he announced, was an attack on people "who believe in freedom, who practise tolerance and who defend the inalienable rights of man". He made, as usual, absolutely no reference to the Middle East, to America's woeful, biased policies in that region, to its ruthless support for Arab dictators who do its bidding – for Saddam Hussein, for example, at a time when the head of Iraqi nuclear research was undergoing his Calvary – nor to America's military presence in the holiest of Muslim lands, nor to its unconditional support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza.

Oddly, a very faint ghost of this reality did creep into the start of the President's UN address last week. It was contained in two sentences whose importance was totally ignored by the American press – and whose true meaning might have been lost on Mr Bush himself, given that he did not write his speech – but it was revealing nonetheless. "Our common security," he said, "is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides." Then he repeated his old line about the need for "an independent and democratic Palestine".

This was perhaps as close as we've got, so far, to an official admission that this whole terrible crisis is about the Middle East. If this is a simple war for civilisation against "evil" – the line that Mr Bush was so cruelly peddling again to the survivors of 11 September and the victims' relatives last week – ...

This war is a fraud, and a dangerous one. For it comes at a time when we do face a threat – the possibility of another 9/11. The President was forced to acknowledge this in his UN speech – after all, it was the first anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our history – but with a twist:

"In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale."

Say what? This tortured attempt to link Al Qaeda to an "outlaw regime," i.e. Iraq, is proffered with proof, or irony. For the terrorists didn't need "technologies" to ram two airliners into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon – they only had to turn our own technology against us. Armed just with box-cutter and fanatic boldness, it was Al Qaeda, and not Saddam, that killed some 3,000 New Yorkers.

Almost a year after Sept. 11 where are we? In the last year the Bush Administration and the financial, economic and oil interests which it serves, have proved their continued ability to move forward into totalitarianism and naked aggression faster than any forces of either domestic or international opposition could organize -- either behind them or in front of them. Optimistic and valiant, but inexperienced efforts to fight the juggernaut have started, swirled, eddied and drifted as the Blitzkrieg war that "will not end in our lifetimes" has not even so much as looked sideways. Overwhelming evidence of the regime's crimes in a dozen arenas has been brought to the surface, and yet each new revelation only spurs the Empire to accelerate its long-conceived plans rather than slow down.

From John Wayne's The Green Berets, war films have lied to us about life and death. After the crimes against humanity in New York and Washington last September, I suppose it was inevitable that the Pentagon and the CIA would call on Hollywood for ideas – yes, the movie boys actually did go to Washington to do a little synergy with the local princes of darkness. But when Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld turned up together for the premier of Black Hawk Dawn, I began to get worried.

...It's not difficult to see what's going on. It's not just al-Qa'ida who are the "enemy". It's Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia. Bush Productions are setting up the Arab world. We are being prepared for a wide-screen epic, a spectacle supported by Hollywood fiction and a plot of lies. Alas, my dad is no longer with us to remind them all that cinema does not imitate reality, that war films lie about life and death.

President Bush now seems hell-bent on a plan that could easily lead to a nuclear strike against America – a strike that could cause a disaster many times worse than the World Trade Center attack.

Over and over Mr. Bush has said he'll do whatever is necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq. ("I've made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.") Until recently, that meant an invasion of Iraq – with the only question being when, not if.

Lately, as more and more people have spoken out against such an invasion, he's said he's considering several possibilities. But don't be surprised when some "incident" provides an excuse to launch a full-scale strike against Iraq. American leaders have always found ways to provoke incidents – from Fort Sumter to the Gulf of Tonkin – that draw America into wars.

10 August 2002 - What Really Happened.com

We are told that Iraq may have biological weapons.
The United States DOES have biological weapons.
We are told that Iraq may have nuclear weapons.
The United States DOES have nuclear weapons and is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations.
Iraq has not invaded the US.
The US has invaded Iraq.
Iraq has not committed air piracy over the US.
The US has committed air piracy over Iraq.
And still the US goes to war against Iraq, with every indication that, once started, this war will not end with Iraq. What madness is this?

It is time to face an unpleasant truth. Despite public protests to the contrary, everyone in the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branch WANTS this war, wants to send YOUR children to die in a grab for control of the Mideast and Central Asian oil, because they know that the real agenda for the war is to reverse the balance of trade problem and hold off bankruptcy and collapse for a few more years.

Without this war the US Government will collapse of the accumulated reckless fiscal decisions of the past 90 years. Without this war the members of the permanent ruling class will be out of a job and facing a new government eager to expose and punish the crimes of the previous one, from the murder of Vincent Foster and Iran-Contra drug running, to the lies told to the public about TWA 800, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11.

If you are sitting on your ass, doing nothing, hoping that "someone" in government will stop this madness then you are a fool because the government sees its own survival in this war and your childrens' lives as small price to pay indeed to continue the "American way of life." If you want this war stopped, YOU will have to stop it. There is nobody else BUT you who can stop it. And if you do not, think how you will feel, having had the chance and failing to take it, when the body bag arrives back home. Who but yourself will you blame? Who but yourself will the survivors of the war blame?

...And with all this hate, violence, and suffering, we, as the most powerful nation in the world, pursue the destruction of an entity called 'terror'; we search without rest for a man we're not sure is even alive; and we seek to start a war with a country that we just left in shambles little more than a decade ago. . .a country who has lost more than 1 million people, half of which were children younger than 5, to sanctions we imposed.

It makes me sick to think that the leaders of my country, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, are using my money to carry out, or fund, some of the most atrocious acts of violence and suppression in recent history.

It's strange that something that was written over two centuries ago can still be so applicable, possibly even more so today, than ever before:

"What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment . . . inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose."

Thomas Jefferson was a wise man. It's too bad we only seem to see his wisdom as little more than literature. We obviously haven't come as far as we think.

We note the irony in a recent statement made by the new Afghan Ambassador to Washington, Ishaq Shahryar, who was the subject of a July 7, 2002 L.A. Times story which said, "Already the U.S. Geological Survey is mapping out Afghanistan's extensive natural resources and so many businessmen are pouring into Kabul it is reminiscent of the California Gold Rush, Shahryar said."

I am sure that one benefit of the Balkan and Afghan wars is the establishment of a military presence curtaining Russia.

However, this does not detract from the importance of oil. In fact, should we ever reach a time when the major powers are starved of energy, then such a military curtain would be strategically essential to prevent either Russia or China from making a grab for the Middle East.

Yet there are other strategic targets that are not fully explained by the containment alone hypothesis. Why the U.S. military presence in the Philippines? Why the strong interest in Indonesia and Timor? And why the renewed interest in Somalia and Yemen? Opponents can state that the Philippines and Indonesia/Timor are necessary to contain China. But it just so happens that the Philippines dominates the oil shipping lanes from the Middle East to the U.S., and Indonesia/Timor is suspected to contain reserves of oil and natural gas.

And then there is Somalia. What strategic goal towards containment do Somalia and Yemen hold? None, yet these countries do control both sides of the Gulf of Aden and the mouth of the Red Sea, an important shipping channel for oil.

(THE INVASION WAS PLANNED YEARS AGO - FOR OIL):

Quotes from a document written in 1998 & available on Official US Website:

"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place." (So the only solution is a government placed in power by the US)

"If it wasn't for the courage and the bravery of the people of Afghanistan, we would still be in the middle of a cold war, spending $100 billion a year more trying to defend ourselves from the Russians. It was their strength and courage that broke the will of the Kremlin leaders. They decided that they could not stand up to this kind of resistance among the people of the world. " (Meaning that the CIA taught these people to use terrorist techniques, 'for use against Russia')

FACE THE AWFUL TRUTH! Do you think this 1998 document pointing out the need for the installation of a new government in Afghanistan is co-incidence?

Do you really believe, after reading that OFFICIAL document on an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT website that the war on terror has nothing to do with the oil that Bush, his family & his friends make so much money from?

Face facts: Sept 11 was at the very least financially convenient for these people, as this article shows. They managed both to catch Osama bin Laden AND get their oil*...

*Oh, but they never DID get Osama bin Laden, did they: Just the oil.

Now Afghanistan is about to be used for attacks on Iraq, Iran & the Palestinian authority. These attacks will yield terrible terrorism on American soil, using weapons of mass-destruction. And Bush knows it.

Dear America,

...Few among you are the least bit concerned that no real investigation of 911 has taken place, that no serious investigation of the anthrax attacks is moving forward, that no authentic investigation of Enron, or the murder of one of its top executives, is underway.

How many of you give the slightest damn about the totalitarian measures your government is taking to keep its secret meetings, grubby files and treasonous activities from your eyes?....

When did you stop caring, America? Was it after your own FBI and intelligence agencies plotted the murder of President John F. Kennedy? Or is this just the raving lunacy of the conspiracy nut? What does your gut tell you, America? Is something a little amiss here?

Washington

Coalition Casualties in the US War on "Terrorism"; Afganistan: The Real Numbers, Jihad Unspun

19 August 2002 - Inside The Secret War Council, Time.com

How To Silence the War Drums on the Potomac!, by Ron Holland, the Dixie Daily News
America's War on Terrorism is about oil!, RememberJohn.com

the public becomes wise to the plans of the Washington war-makers

11 September 2002 - The War Party's imperial plans, Patrick J. Buchanan, World Net Daily

14 July 2002 - The great charade; As the West prepares for an assault on Iraq, John Pilger argues that 'war on terror' is a smokescreen created by the ultimate terrorist ... America itself, the 'Observer', Guardian Unlimited

Afganistan

Iraq (pictures from Baghdad)

When was the last time the U.S. Bombed Iraq?

21 Dec 2002 - Seven killed as German helicopter crashes in Kabul, by David Brunnstrom and Erik Kirschbaum, Reuters
10 November 2002 - 16 US-Soldaten getötet?, der Spiegel Online
28 September 2002 - Doubts set in on Afghan mission , by Rupert Wingfield Hayes, BBC
The Aftermath in Afganistan, Austin Against War
23 August 2002 - Two US soldiers killed in Kandahar; Teenager fires shot on US soldiers, Balochistan Post
10 August 2002 - At Least 6 American Paratroopers Killed in the Afghan Province of Paktika, Pravda online
29 July 2002, US accused of airstrike cover-up, The Times (London)
29 July 2002, Six US soldiers killed, four others missing in Khost, The Balochistan Post
28 July 2002, War on terrorism no longer seen as GOP's ace in the election hole, Corpus Christi Caller Times
9 December 2001 - War's Hidden Cost, By John H.Cushman, Jr., New York Times

Stop war on Iraq before it starts - new anti-war movement
24 August 2002 - US Needs Allies to Hit Iraq-Former Secretary Baker, Reuters
23 August 2002 - Hey, we could lose in Iraq, by Gregg Dobbs, Scripps Howard News Service
22 August 2002 - Bombing Iraq to Protect Israel, by James J. David, Media Monitors Network
22 August 2002 - "Wag the Puppy" -- New Twist in Media War by Norman Solomon
20 August 2002 - Seven fallacies of US plans to invade Iraq, by Stephen Zunes, Asia Times

20 August 2002 - Iraq says three civilians hurt in Western air raid, MSNBC

5 August 2002, Double warning against Iraq war, Times Online: warned President Bush yesterday that invading Iraq would cause an “explosion” in the Middle East and consign the United States to defeat in its War on Terror.
4 August 2002, Bush Insists Saddam Must Go Even If He Allows Weapons Inspections, AFP
4 August 2002, This war would not be a just war, Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, Guardian Unlimited
29 July 2002, US exploited UN arms teams -- ex-UN chief inspector, MSNBC, Stockholm

Isn't Saddam Hussein the world's worst bad guy?

Central Asia

Qatar, other Persian Gulf states

Syria and Lebanon

Jordan

28 August 2002, Other Middle East targets?, by John K. Cooley, Christian Science Monitor

Iran

Indonesia

Bali night club blast:

15 October 2002 - Indonesian anger at FBI investigation, by Dan McDougall, The Scotsman
14 October 2002 - U.S. Intelligence: Bali Attack 'Sophisticated', Tabassum Zakaria, Yahoo News [US insists sophisticated bomb used in Bali, built with US-made explosives, "proves" Al Qaeda behind attack.]

Saudi Arabia, too???

Phillipines, other venues

bin Laden, al Qaida, other organizations

20 August 2002 - Bin Laden: from 'Evil One' to Unmentionable One, by Alan Elsner, Yahoo News
20 August 2002 - CNN'$ terror tapes; Al Qaeda footage bought & paid for, Daily News
18 August 2002 - Tapes shed new light on bin Laden's network, CNN.com, What Really Happened comments:

From "Wag The Dog" to "Gas The Dog" This is the purest war propaganda. One video of what may be Osama bin Laden mixed with a video of a dog being gassed which could have been created anywhere equals the US sinking to new lows trying to manufacture support for a war nobody but the oil companies want. This dog-video reminds me of Hill & Knowlton's much ballyhooed claim that Iraqi troops were stealing incubators from Kuwait hospitals and leaving premature babies to die on the floor. That was a hoax to sell a war. And until proven otherwise, the safest course is to assume this latest "shock video" is just another propaganda stunt by the public relations firms which grow rich and fat off of your tax dollars by lying to you for the US Government. Anonymous US officials have declared this to be "unquestionable" evidence that al Qaeda has chemical weapons. I find it very questionable. For one thing, the compare the quality of the dog video with that of the famous Osama "confession" tape. Why does a dog get much better video quality than the boss?, WhatRealyHappened.com

PS: Here's the pics of the Israeli dog tests from PETA's site:

18 August 2002 - Abdullah certain bin Laden is alive, CNN.com
30 July 2002, Report: Bin Laden alive, preparing attack, UPI

We wonder...

10 August 2002 - Terror threat overblown, says expert, Christian Bourge, UPI
9 August 2002 - A Banker's War - and the President who was a traitor. Could history be repeating itself?, BankIndex

This war for oil