It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks Hillary knew Saudis sponsored ISIS took money from them, and helped cover it up

page: 11
132
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: shooterbrody

Dear lord. Are you really so naive?

Are you really so naive as to expect that states have no secrets? Or that their public pronouncements are not acts of policy?


Why are you so arrogant and smug? If you want to have a serious conversation, fine.



Yes. So did just about everybody else.

No they didn't. This has been repeated over and over by people, but all of the articles posted show that the US claimd Saudi Arabia was an environment where private citizens could fund Isis.

Hillarys email makes it clear she was admitting the government of Saudi Arabia sponsored Isis.

And since everyone knew this,let me ask you, are the saudis still funding Isis?



No. It was her job (while Secretary of State) to look after the interests of the USA. If sanctions were in the country’s interest, then sanctions there would be. If they are likely to damage US interests, then there will be none.

But that is not for you or I to decide. It is for the relevant constituted authority to decide. I believe that authority, in the US, is the President.


I am sorry but this is flat wrong. If our leaders decide that helping fund a terrorist organization that beheads gays, commits genocide, and has child sex slaves is for the greater good for some reason then they need to be removed.

If you are willing to give them a pass on this, what would you ever criticize them for?

Maybe they start killing their political opponents in the US. Well they know best!

And the kicker is Hillary and obama lie to us and say they are fighting Isis. Why would we believe anything they say? Maybe they want Isis to come in wuth the Syrian refugees. Maybe they think that would be in the best interests of the country.

And then they have the nerve to lecture people about womens and gay rights, and religious intolerance. All the while they are supporting people that rape women and behead gays and kill anyone not of their religion.



No, the Clinton Foundation accepted money from them, as it had every right to do.


Do you honestly think that the Clintons were not enriched personally through the foundation? Remeber, they were broke when they left the white house. If all of the speaking fees went to the foundation like you said, how did they get so rich?

And just bbecause it may have been legal for the foundation to take the money doesn't mean they shouldn't be held morally responsible from where it came from.

If Putin gave Trumps foundation 25 million dollars, the media would explode with anger.



Saudi Arabia and Qatar are longstanding allies of the United States, which has defence agreements with both countries. It is hard to see how American security interests would be served by abrogating those agreements. What would happen next? A US occupation of the Gulf? Or should you just leave them to the Russians and the Iranians?


The official stance of the US government is not that these countries are arming Isis. It is that they are helping us fight Isis.

Is Isis our enemy? So Hillary is knowingly arming our enemy, and if others in the government know that these weapons are going to Isis and they are sending them, then they are guilty of treason too.

Is your stance that we have to arm a country that we know is directly giving weapons to isis because if not we may have to occupy the gulf, meanwhile the fact that Isis exists is now forcing us to go into places like Libya and syria. This is a joke.

Every major conflict we have been in in the past 30 years is over terrorism, but now we need to fund terrorism to avoid conflict?

No, its treason.



Fiddlesticks.


The why does the US try others that find terrorim? We blame foreigners that give money to terrorist and try them as accessories to those crimes, but when Hillary knowingly helps Isis, including after she was in the state department by sending her associates to work PR for them, she is not responsible?




Strategic errors are not treason. Andwhere else should American citizens die? On foreign soil?


Aiding a known enemy of the United states is treason, not a strategic error.



You clearly don’t know much American history.

Next, please. Can someone tell me, without all the hysterical reaching and confabulation, what wrongdoing has actually been shown here?

Thanks in advance.



The facts have been outlined.

You don't think there is any wrong doing because you think there is no problem with arming and helping Isis.

You think that it is necessary, and no one should think it is a big deal.

Then let me ask you this,

you say you have known for a while that the Saudis arm isis, and that you know we arm them and give them money, but no one should care about it because its no big deal.

Then why doesn't Hillary hold a press conference and announce that she knowingly helped arm Isis, her foundation took millions from the Saudis while they were sponsoring Isis, and she helped cover this up with her staffs PR firm.

She can explain how it was necessary. Its no big deal right? No one would even care, they would just agree that Hillary knows best.

She could explain that while yes, Isis has a policy of keeping children as sex slaves, she had to help them, and Trump saying lewd things is worse for women.

You think this is all ok, so surely everyone else would agree with you, right?
edit on 12-10-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Why are you so arrogant and smug?

You call it arrogance and smugness, but I am simply astonished that anyone thinks diplomatic statements are intended to be taken at face value. Such statements are intended to advance the foreign policy of a state, and since their audience includes both the friends and enemies of the state, they cannot possibly be naive statements of fact.

Get it? Not arrogant. Not smug. Just amazed and, to be honest, somewhat disbelieving. Because I feel that no-one is really that naive, that in fact the poster I was replying to understood full well that he was quoting a diplomatic statement, and what that means, but was so keen to appear morally outraged at Clintonian calumnies that he was willing to look like a dummy to create the effect he wanted. Or maybe because they thought that line of talk would play well with dummies.

Right. Now, in short order...

1. Isis got, and gets, funding and weapons from numerous sources. So yes, everybody (used loosely) was funding Isis.

2. Saudi and Qatari state funding (if it actually exists; these states are, after all, private fiefdoms) might well be channelled through private sources in order to secure deniability. Again, I repeat: Saudi Arabia and Qatar are US allies. Whatever it knows in private, the US has to act as though the Saudi and Qatari regimes are not involved, although behind the scenes it may be using all kinds of pressure and covert operations to stop the diversion of funds to Isis. That is how these things work and it is how they must work, unless the US intends to cut the Saudis and Qataris loose as allies. Sorry if you can’t see that or don’t approve of it. Diplomacy, like politics, is the art of the possible.

I know this site is full of believers in the impossible, so I’m not surprised that real-life foreign policy doesn’t play well among you.

3. You said,


If our leaders decide that helping fund a terrorist organization that beheads gays, commits genocide, and has child sex slaves is for the greater good for some reason then they need to be removed.

All very fine and high-sounding. So tell me, is the US not doing its best to eradicate Isis? That effort depends partly on the Saudis. In the huge Saudi ruling family there are some who want to defeat IS and who support the US, and others who support IS and try to funnel money and arms to them. That is the diplomatic bind the US is caught in, and there is no good way to deal with it. Your leaders are doing the best they can.

Oh, and before you ask, yes, I think Iran-Contra was a similar situation for Reagan and his chums: something they got themselves into for circumstantial reasons, not because they were a bunch of lying corrupt treasonous rats.

You can cry treason until you’re red, white and blue, but it isn’t. It’s policy. It’s diplomacy. And it is working.


Do you honestly think that the Clintons were not enriched personally through the foundation?

On the contrary, it was the foundation that was enriched through the Clintons. Would anyone have donated to it if they were not part of it?

As for them being broke, nobody who was President of the United States is going to stay poor for long once out of office.


Aiding a known enemy of the United states is treason, not a strategic error.

That is not the strategic error I was referring to. The strategic error was stirring Libya up with a stick.


you say you have known for a while that the Saudis arm isis, and that you know we arm them and give them money, but no one should care about it because its no big deal.

That is certainly not what I said, and it is not what I mean. Obviously you should care about it and it is a big deal. But — given the situation on the ground — it is unavoidable. The US has to keep its Middle Eastern allies on side.


Then why doesn't Hillary hold a press conference and announce that she knowingly helped arm Isis, her foundation took millions from the Saudis while they were sponsoring Isis, and she helped cover this up with her staffs PR firm.

Because, my friend, the world is pullulating with idiots.

edit on 13/10/16 by Astyanax because: of some edits.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Grambler


Why are you so arrogant and smug?


1. Isis got, and gets, funding and weapons from numerous sources. So yes, everybody (used loosely) was funding Isis.


Ok so you admit the Saudis are still funding Isis. Yet Obama is currently still backing them, while simultaneously trying to fight Isis in places like syria, but also fighting Assad, and leading to a potential war with the Russians.

So In other words the russians and assad are right, Isis is trying to take over in Syria, and the US is helping them. Yes this is great foreign policy. You better damn well believe that if we found out thr Russians were arming terrorists to attck the US we would be outraged, so surely you agree that the Russians are justifed at their anger to the US.

But you say we have no choice but to work with the Saudis because otherwise we would end up in the Gulf? So being forced to fight Isis all over the world, and draw closer to a conflict with Russia is better than cutting ties with the Saudis?



2. Saudi and Qatari state funding (if it actually exists; these states are, after all, private fiefdoms) might well be channelled through private sources in order to secure deniability. Again, I repeat: Saudi Arabia and Qatar are US allies. Whatever it knows in private, the US has to act as though the Saudi and Qatari regimes are not involved, although behind the scenes it may be using all kinds of pressure and covert operations to stop the diversion of funds to Isis. That is how these things work and it is how they must work, unless the US intends to cut the Saudis and Qataris loose as allies. Sorry if you can’t see that or don’t approve of it. Diplomacy, like politics, is the art of the possible.

What matters is HIllary though the government of Saudi was funding Isis, she tooks lots of money from them to the foundation plus gift s like a necklace, Bill got huge speaking fees, and she sent her staffs PR firm to help cover up the Saudis crimes which has gotten millions of dollars.

And the last part she did as a private citizen.




You can cry treason until you’re red, white and blue, but it isn’t. It’s policy. It’s diplomacy. And it is working.


Isis was created under Obama and Hillary. They were knowingly arming groups and taking money from them that were funding Isis. Now I am supposed to be impressed that supposedly Isis numbers are dwindling?

Aren't you the one who supposedly knows foreign policy so well? Do you really not think that Hillary and Obama couldn't be publicly attacking Isis in some places while backing them others to achieve goals, such as going into Syria.

If they were serious about wiping out Isis, they would go after its financiers. Instaed, they arm and defend those people for huge personal gain among other things






As for them being broke, nobody who was President of the United States is going to stay poor for long once out of office.


But wait, all of the speaking fees went to the foundation, and they put all of this money into the foundation.

How did they get rich then?

Again, you call others naive, but you assume that it would be impossibel for the Clintons to make money off of their foundation.





That is certainly not what I said, and it is not what I mean. Obviously you should care about it and it is a big deal. But — given the situation on the ground — it is unavoidable. The US has to keep its Middle Eastern allies on side.


Why? Because terrorists would thrive if we left? Oh wait, we are finding the terrorists now!

And could it be that one of the reason that the ME is so bad be because we keep funding terrorists that attack other countries and that makes them upset? Do you think Yemen is happy with us as the Saudis commit war crimes their that we back?

70 years of overthrowing regimes by funding rebels, only to have to go back in and foght those rebels, of backing countries that commit war crimes that finance people attacking the US, and you say we have to continue gthis policy for ME stability?




Because, my friend, the world is pullulating with idiots.


You are right, we are all stupid.

Your defense of this boils down to sure Hillary knew they were sponsoring Isis, and sure she took money from them to her foundation, and sure she helped cover for them, but its ok because its necessary for our global strategy.

I guess we will just agree to disagree. I think that financing what is supposed to be the greatest physical threat to America is a big deal. I think that taking money from these people would never be justified.

I am not going to be talked to about human rights by people that think that its ok to help child rapists.

So I will keep trying to let people know about it, and if those people get upset, you can tell them how naive they are and its no bg deal, and how they should instead be outraged over Trumps taxes or lewd comments or whatever.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Saudi & Qatar have be known funding sources for IS since it's inception, Israel and Saudi supplied both training and expertise in the beginning, weapons have been channel from eastern Europe, paid for by Saudi & Qatari money, sent through supply lines in Turkey with the FULL knowledge of the state department and the CIA

IS were a creation that got out of hand (strange how CIA etc NEVER learn from their mistakes) by the US, Israel and Saudi, Syria & Iran were the intended battleground until the Russians got pissed off and decided to get involved.

IS is no more an Islamic group than Mossad is, same agenda, destabilise the middle east and just like before it all goes horribly wrong and innocent people pay for it, mostly Arabs and Europeans, look at the US civilian death toll - virtually nil - strange that eh



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: empireoflizards

If you live in a remote town

And there's a man in that town that has all the anti-biotics.

However that same man uses all the money from the sale of his anti-biotics to arm mercenaries to steal equipment and money and resources from fellow villagers and foreign villagers so he can make more anti-biotics and keep the cycle going.

Your mother and wife become deathly ill with bacterial infections...

Are you going to choose to not do business with that man on principal? Because you know your money will go towards hurting people and potentially yourself?

No... unless you yourself are insane. You give him money and get the drugs.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: empireoflizards

If you live in a remote town

And there's a man in that town that has all the anti-biotics.

However that same man uses all the money from the sale of his anti-biotics to arm mercenaries to steal equipment and money and resources from fellow villagers and foreign villagers so he can make more anti-biotics and keep the cycle going.

Your mother and wife become deathly ill with bacterial infections...

Are you going to choose to not do business with that man on principal? Because you know your money will go towards hurting people and potentially yourself?

No... unless you yourself are insane. You give him money and get the drugs.


Ok how does this have anything to do with the situation being discussed?

Is the man the Saudis, so we have to give them money to save us?

This is a joke. First, what is the anti biotic the Saudis are giving us? Nothing at all, they are just arming the people that want to kill us.

Secondly, you imply that we have family members dying, or in other wrds that we are so desperate we have to tak action. But thats not true. What makes us so desperate that we have to arm the people that are trying to kill us?

And your example takes out the middle man, Hillary. See in reality Hillary knows the man is arming people to kill the villagers, but she lies to the villagers and says the man is a good person. And she helps cover the mans crimes, all the while the man enriches her.

This whole analogy doesn't make sense to me, and only complicates the issue.

Hillary is helping cover up for and arm isis, and she is getting rich doing it. There, thats much simpler than your analogy.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Hm, this email could probably be a thread unto itself, but I'll drop this tidbit here:


Last Thursday, April 12, I met individually with the Ambassadors from Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, and Rwanda, in Washington, DC. Below is a summary of key points from each meeting, and we are following-up on each point. I'd welcome your feedback. Sincerely, Ami

QATAR

- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011.

- Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti - particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team.


/podesta-emails/emailid/8396

Gee, wasn't his wife holding an important position in government at the time of this $1 million birthday gift?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Hilary created ISIS, she said it herself so of course she would be happy to take money from them too.

She is rolling around in ISIS money. Someone told me also that, she is going for President? I mean, they did say to me. Wanna hear a joke? Before telling me that....



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
All external content linked here and below to Salon article

A recently leaked 2014 email from Hillary Clinton acknowledges, citing Western intelligence sources, that the U.S.-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar have supported ISIS. “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” the document states.

Another newly released email, from January 2016, includes an excerpt from a private October 2013 speech in which Clinton acknowledged that “the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years.” In that same speech, Clinton noted that she wanted to pursue “a more robust, covert action trying to vet, identify, train and arm cadres of rebels” in Syria, that would have fought both the government of President Bashar al-Assad and “the Al-Qaeda-related jihadist groups that have, unfortunately, been attracted to Syria.” She added however, “That’s been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons — and pretty indiscriminately — not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

This August 2014 email is by no means the first time Saudi Arabia and Qatar, close U.S. allies, have been accused of supporting ISIS and other extremist groups. In fact, in October 2014, just a few weeks after Clinton sent the intelligence notes to Podesta, Vice President Joe Biden harshly criticized Saudi Arabia and Turkey in a talk at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He noted, “They were so determined to take down” Assad that they “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad – except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra, and al-Qaida, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.” He added, “We could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.”


I guess I'm not really comprehending why the right is so exercised about this. Just more dancing with and trying to redirect the Saudi devil, which has been official U.S. policy for how long?

Leaked Hillary Clinton emails show U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported ISIS
edit on 13-10-2016 by Elbereth because: correct and elaborate



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Do you not see the disconnect between your statement:




I guess I'm not really comprehending why the right is so exercised about this. Just more dancing with and trying to redirect the Saudi devil, which has been official U.S. policy for how long?




And your signature line:



The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature or the ends produced
Aldous Huxley



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
Do you not see the disconnect between your statement:

I guess I'm not really comprehending why the right is so exercised about this. Just more dancing with and trying to redirect the Saudi devil, which has been official U.S. policy for how long?


And your signature line:

The ends cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the nature or the ends produced
Aldous Huxley

---------------------------

The ideal versus the reality. I think our ME policy is despicable, and protecting the Saudis an affront to the victims of 9/11. I certainly don't justify it, but I don't like seeing it misconstrued and tortured for political ends either.
edit on 13-10-2016 by Elbereth because: correct and elaborate



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

This may also point to the problem with WikiLeaks, and hear me out for a second.

Maybe Hillary was trying to do something about it, and acted on it immediately by working to get right up the Saudis asses. You need an access point from which to pressure or to influence, so in they went, right away almost. It was actioned.

We don't know the goings on involved, but it could have been a brilliant maneuver to stop the flow of financing to ISIS by influencing the Royal Court under the guise of a publican relations contract.

Think of it - you have to do stuff like that to get anywhere, right?

But, with WikiLeaks leaking the intelligence, in some ways while it may be helpful in allowing us to see the inner workings of power and influence, US interests can be badly hurt, so there's a tradeoff I guess.

On the whole though, if everything is completely transparent with these leaks, then that puts a huge constraint on the projection capabilities of soft power.

As to the gifts, those should not have been accepted or if accepted, if that's how the Saudis do these things, to just set them aside and never wear them and never sell them to a fence for personal enrichment.

Now if someone can find a picture of her wearing the jewelry, why then you'd really have her caught in an act of corruption.

But you don't know what influences were brought to bear in the process.

You can't enter people's courts on attack, you have to have a back channel and that's what she appears to have done.

Was she fomenting the financing of ISIS? I don't think so. Looks like she was looking out for American interests or simply put, doing her job.

Meanwhile, was this information just leaked, or was it hacked information, and therein resides the problem of WikiLeaks publishing hacked info.

WikiLeaks should only post leaked info that points directly at corruption, not shackle US soft power projection with info leaked by state actors, imho.

Just my two cents. (readying self to take flak lol)


A recently leaked 2014 email from Hillary Clinton acknowledges, citing Western intelligence sources, that the U.S.-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar have supported ISIS.

“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” the document states.


Trump otoh, well? how precisely would he handle it?

"Give me all your money or face nuclear annihilation" and then offend the prophet and grab one of their women or make an inappropriate comment about their daughters or something? Ask for a harem?

I don't think he could even craft such an email, but would only make choices based on what's handed to him. He wouldn't initiate like that? It would be all based on raw power and threats and demands, but the Saudis might just go well f him and the Americans then..

edit on 13-10-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


you call others naive, but you assume that it would be impossibel for the Clintons to make money off of their foundation.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your post, which is simply a repeat of what you said earlier. If you cannot understand or accept my explanation there is nothing more I can do for you.

I don’t think it is impossible for the Clintons to make money from their foundation. Obviously they do: it pays them for the work they do on its behalf, and they pay taxes on that income.

You missed my point completely. It may be because you refuse to. It may be because you aren’t able to. I really don’t care either way.

Anybody else want to try and explain what wrong exactly has been done here, either legally or morally?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Ok how does this have anything to do with the situation being discussed?

If you can’t see how, there really is no hope of having a serious discussion with you. Farewell.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


With WikiLeaks leaking the intelligence, in some ways while it may be helpful in allowing us to see the inner workings of power and influence, US interests can be badly hurt

Can be? This thread shows plainly that they already are being. The clamour of fools is already obstructing and hamstringing US foreign policy, because the US is a democracy, and the fools have votes.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
A lot of you talk about "us interests".... its a very comical concept as if US interests should somehow excercise influence on the way other countries are run and what happens to the people in those countries.

The "us interests" cannot go further than its own borders... just as the US really has no right to have placed all those bases around the world.

The free market isnt free anymore thats the problem.

We are no longer talking about the interests of whole countries but instead the interests of a select few who in turn rewards those who help them protect their interests. The general population is just cannon fodder... consumers... slaves...

So when this is obvious the analogy of the man making the medicine, by stealing from others to male more of it to sell it to your ailing mother says more about the interests of a single egotistical individual than peoples.

In fact if you took that man making the medicine, killed him and distributed those tools for making medicine evenly back amongst the people, your mother would still be able to buy hers, and at the same time, no one was robbed and everyone was able to make a living making that medicine...... tell me one reason why situation one is better than the latter..................

I think thats the problem with Americans, you are still stuck in that colonial "gotta make it!" mentality... you dont care for eachother, but at the same time want to appear to care for your country.
And when you dont care for eachother, that makes it that much harder respecting that you as an individual AND as a peoples have no say what so ever what ANY other country in the world does with the.resources they have available to them in their part of the world, just as you have NO say in who governs.what country in what way.


If you did have a say, that would equally mean that I would have a say in mobilizing a military attack on washington simply because your so-called democracy is non-existant and hurting the general population.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

A big part of the problem here is that these were not leaked docs by a whistleblower wanting to expose corruption. They were hacked by state-sponsored actors who's intent was to undermine the American democratic process.

I think people ought to be careful about jumping on everything that comes out of WikiLeaks because at some level it could make you a traitor.

That Trump is so dependant on these hacked email leaks is in and of itself very disturbing.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork






That Trump is so dependant on these hacked email leaks is in and of itself very disturbing.


There is no denying that.

Partisan politics aside. If true, which they likely are, this puts Americans unwittingly on the wrong side of a possible world war.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

What are you saying? Can you elaborate?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I'm saying that as we supply arms to Saudi and in turn ISIS (and other extremists), were fueling the fire. Now Russia is taking a fairly public hard line on ISIS. Tensions are mounting based on the other ATS posts on the subject.

Wouldn't you think this could be a smoking gun to anyone trying to route out ISIS?



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join