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.

 

Is The War With Iran Now Starting?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Iranian Quaran Newspaper

iqna.ir...



Americans Know Bush Better

These past few days US and world media have been engaged in launching an ominous campaighn to give support to Bush's new war strategy in Iraq. But wisdom and justice front is not totaly perished yet and there is a new saying that goes " Americans Know Bush Better.

Impeach Bush—Stop Iran Invasion

By Paul Craig Roberts

When are the American people and their representatives in Congress and the military going to wake up and realize that the US has an insane war criminal in the White House who is destroying all chances for peace in the world and establishing a police state in the US?

Americans don’t have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush’s "surge" speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East.

The "surge" gives Congress, the media, and the foreign policy establishment something to debate and oppose, while Bush sets his plans in motion to orchestrate a war with Iran.

Suddenly, we are hearing Bush regime propaganda that there are Iranian networks operating within Iraq that are working with the Iraqi insurgency and killing US troops. This assertion is a lie and preposterous on its face. Iranian Shi’ites are not going to arm Iraqi Sunnis, who are more focused on killing Iraqi Shi’ites allied with Iran than on killing US troops. If the Iranians wanted to cause the US trouble in Iraq, they would encourage Iraqi Shi’ites to join the insurgency against US forces. An insurgency drawn from 80% of the Iraqi population would overwhelm the US forces.

CBS reports that the news organization has been told by US officials "that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq." To manufacture evidence in behalf of this lie to feed to the gullible American public, US forces invaded an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq and kidnapped 5 consulate officials, claiming the Iranians were part of plans "to kill Americans." In typical Orwellian fashion, Secretary of State Condi Rice described Bush’s aggression against Iran as designed to confront Tehran’s aggression.

Iraqi government officials in the Kurdish province and the Iraqi foreign minister have refused to go along with Bush’s propaganda ploy. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced that the Iranian officials were no threat and were working in a liaison office that had Iraqi government approval and was in the process of being elevated into a consulate.

The Iraqi foreign minister said that US troops tried to seize more innocent people at the Irbil airport but were prevented by Kurdish troops.

The Kurds, of course, have been allies of the US forces, but Bush is willing to alienate the Kurds in the interest of provoking a war with Iran.

If Bush is unable to orchestrate war with Iran directly, he will orchestrate war indirectly by having US troops attack Iraqi Shi’ite militias. Bush has already given orders for US troops to attack the Iraqi Shi’ite militias, who oppose the Sunnis and have not been part of the insurgency. Obviously, once Bush can get US troops in open warfare with Iraqi Shi’ites, the situation for US troops in Iraq will quickly go down hill. Bush will be able to blame Iranian Shi’ites for arming Iraqi Shi’ites that he can say are killing US troops.

.... Continued at link ....




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   


Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.
en.wikipedia.org...


I am impress with his article he is actually telling the truth, Bush has become so easily to read that we can pretty much tell his next move with our eyes close.

Perhaps because . . . is not bush the one planning the wars? or because the forces pushing the next Iran-US confrontation care less if they are known.

Mr. Roberts has been critical of both administration so this is not a Democrat journalism bashing.

I love the link thanks.



[edit on 16-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
Is this a joke?


Nope…


Originally posted by Luxifero
Turkey supplied by Clintonian arms slaughtered how many Kurds? Afghanistan former leadership, the Taliban, was supplied by whom? All these proxies are under U.S jurisdiction ever so blatantly.

And to the rest of the “paragraph”?

As I stated in the post you are referencing…pointing the finger at the US does not and can not justify Iran’s actions. Iran’s actions are not that of a peace seeking nation and my response in the previous post made just this point.

Apologists often fall back on this kind of argument and it reminds me of times when my seven year old is caught doing something he shouldn’t be doing. He immediately points to his older brother to redirect the negative attention and say “but, but, but he did…[fill in the act]… as if this justifies his own bad behavior.


Originally posted by Luxifero
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ?


Mmmk…This is not some kind of “new news”…(of course I did not mention Hizb-i Wahdat because that’s just too easy)


Iran also has an appalling record of exporting terror. It has committed many assassinations overseas, including three in London in 1987. It was behind the bombing in Argentina that killed 85 people in 1994. The revolutionary guards were believed to have been involved in an attempted coup in Bahrain in 1996. In Afghanistan, there is evidence of the revolutionary guards forming a fifth column, which has attempted to undermine Hamid Karzai. They also worked closely with the Afghan warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who has also attempted to destabilise the Karzai regime.
Debate on Iran in the UK House of Commons, January 2006


This is interesting because Hekmatyar (founder of Hizb-i-Islami ) was in supposed “exile” inside Iran at the time:


Islamabad, 11 Jan. (AKI) - The Afghan insurgent leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has said in an interview broadcast on Thursday on Pakistani television channel GEO TV, that his fighters had helped al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escape from US forces in 2001 in the Tora Bora mountain ranges in Afghanistan.
Source


Hmmmm...


Originally posted by Luxifero
Does it matter however when we can see so clearly that Afghanistan is just a senseless battle with no rational justification behind it?


Apparently Teheran does not take your point of view.



Originally posted by Luxifero
You would have us believe Somalia was a humanitarian effort?


“Was” is the operative word here..and yes it was a humanitarian mission in the context used…I was simply relaying correct information about events of 1993, the US, UN and Somalia…no?

What the US may or may not be engaged currently surrounding the Somali issue is irrelevant to my post on Iran…but it does reinforce my initial point about the indicative need of those to point fingers only one direction.


Originally posted by Luxifero
The U.S has other interests particularly in creating power vacuums all over the world and of course Islamic quiescence.


Here’s a little secret...So do other nations…not just the US…Shhhh.



Mg



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   


“Was” is the operative word here..and yes it was a humanitarian mission in the context used…I was simply relaying correct information about events of 1993, the US, UN and Somalia…no?

What the US may or may not be engaged currently surrounding the Somali issue is irrelevant to my post on Iran…but it does reinforce my initial point about the indicative need of those to point fingers only one direction.


Correct information? Hardly. Your pertinence on the issue fell through when you state it as a humanitarian effort by the U.S. From 1978 through 1990 the U.S was the main support foundation for Siad Barre, a replica of Saddam Hussein at the time who according to Africa Watch (a human rights monitoring group based in Washington, DC) is responsible for killing about 50-60 thousand peoples. His policies utterly destroyed the civil, social and justice systems in Somalia and it's consequences are still felt to this day. The intervention in Somalia was a blatant PR campaign, and you know that. The night landing that we all saw lauded on television? 30 thousand Marines to intervene in a country that was appreciating in a much more positive manner -though after the U.S intervention this would all change. You think all of this was a humanitarian effort? What sort of Humanitarian effort kills 7-10 thousand Somalian civilians? Only a U.S based one. In fact, let's take that number to at least 100 thousand if we count their support for the tyrant Siad Barre; one should also tally up the number of deaths subsequently that have occurred due this detrimental US humanitarian intervention. Colin Powel, the then Joint chiefs of Staff himself described this as the best PR operation he could imagine.

On December 4, 1992, President Bush stated the following:

Our mission has a limited objective--to open the supply routes, to get the food moving, and to prepare the way for a U.N. peace-keeping force to keep it moving. This operation is not open-ended. We will not stay longer than is absolutely necessary.

Let's break this apart.

to open the supply routes, to get the food moving

From September-October the region was already on it's way to recovery. Groups like International Red Cross, Save The Children, and smaller groups like the American Friends Service Committee or Australian Care had gotten aid through. By November numbers were reaching 80-90 percent success of Aid getting through and by late November 95 percent of Aid had gone through, without the help of 30 thousand U.S Marines. Much of this was achieved by a fellow named Mohammed Sahnoun, and Algerian and a top UN negotiator who was later ejected by Boutros-Ghali (UN Secretary General) for publicly scrutinizing the failed and corrupt UN effort and replaced by an Iraqi who was by no means tantamount to his success.

Success was well under it's way before the U.S decided to intervene after President Bush saw heart wrenching images on T.V on thanksgiving and decided that the U.S must intervene and save Somalia. Though this is a blatant lie. US reporters in Baidoa in early November saw U.S Marines scouting areas for potential bases, dressed in civilian clothing...



and to prepare the way for a U.N. peace-keeping force to keep it moving

Exactly what constitutes a U.N peace-keeping force? The U.N managed to detail a fraction of what the U.S had committed as peace keepers and historically has done so in the past and present. The sort of Coalition that is seen presently is a good example of the U.S's ability to convince nations to help in it's humanitarian efforts the world over. Very little assistance is warranted which can be considered by any means a peace-keeping force in que for U.S personal to depart so they can take over.

The US WAS and IS the country to have fingers pointed at when it comes to Somalia and history merits this finger pointing. PR operations such as Black Hawk only made matters worse, this highly exaggerated event is characteristic of American competence in humanitarian efforts.

Bosnia, at the time, would have been a more viable effort yet instead Somalia was chosen do to it's seemingly placid environment; Bosnians would have engaged U.S Marines whereas a jaded Somalia would not.




As I stated in the post you are referencing…pointing the finger at the US does not and can not justify Iran’s actions. Iran’s actions are not that of a peace seeking nation and my response in the previous post made just this point.


Finger pointing at the U.S does not justify Iran's actions perhaps, but actions have to be substantiated as factual and evidently reason of serious negative implications for Afghanistan in the long run for you to be accusing it. So far we have nothing but conjecture and a link with a warlord, not the taliban and hardly any clear cut evidence that Iran is engaged in anything serious in Afghanistan. The CIA was also in support of this fool Iran seems to be supporting, yet we finger point at Iran.

Iran is not a peace keeping nation nor does it acclaim to be. The U.S however does keep this as an accolade on it's belt along with numerous others dubiously dubbed themselves yet accordingly has failed successively for decades to bring any peace to regions it finds reason to intervene.

I think my finger point also proves the U.S to be a large supplier of small and large arms to numerous regions of the world and it's utter refusal to accept numerous resolutions impeded such injections of arms really does speak volumes of it's stance on humanism.




In Afghanistan, there is evidence of the revolutionary guards forming a fifth column, which has attempted to undermine Hamid Karzai. They also worked closely with the Afghan warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who has also attempted to destabilise the Karzai regime


Good. Hamid Karzai is a puppet that has no reflection of the Afghan people nor does he administer any sort of merited issuances and declarations that would lead the country in a more positive respect.

Continued.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by Luxifero]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Karzai has more pertinent issues to be dealing with.

www.oxfam.org...




Afghanistan has one of the highest concentrations of guns per person in the world. There may be up to 10 million small arms circulating in a country which has a population of 23 million. The human consequences are not just measured in deaths and injuries. The culture of the gun has become deeply embedded, and the presence of firearms has a fundamental impact on democracy, development, and security.





Islamabad, 11 Jan. (AKI) - The Afghan insurgent leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has said in an interview broadcast on Thursday on Pakistani television channel GEO TV, that his fighters had helped al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escape from US forces in 2001 in the Tora Bora mountain ranges in Afghanistan.


Wow. So did Clinton and so did the Bush administration help fly this mans family out of the country after 9/11..what a small world.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I think that Bush/Cheney etal want to attack Iran and that it was part of the original strategy for invading Iraq to begin with, to create a beach head to start from. After all the hard right has had a war-on for Iran ever since the hostage crisis. I still don't think it is going to happen though, not at this late date. Congress is no longer kowtowing to Bush (though I really don't think he realizes that yet) for one and the American populous simply has no stomach or patience for more wars. I think that people after 9/11 were willing to accept on a knee jerk level the concept of a decades long war on terror but the combination of bloodshed and stupidity, hubris and arrogance has pretty much ended that. If anything I believe that Bush is probably going to provoke a constituitional crisis and possibly a revolt within the upper levels of the military because they obviously know what a third front will do to our armed forces, and won't let it happen. After all Iran is not a beaten down state like Iraq was after the first gulf war and then 12 years of crippling sanctions. Iran is a far larger, far stronger, far more populous and far more wealthy than Iraq ever was. It will put up a fight. If bush in his folly orders an invasion, and the military complies, it is going to be a bloodbath and any international crediblity the United States has left, will be gone.

Its going to be an interesting year.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero


Correct information? Hardly. Your pertinence on the issue fell through when you state it as a humanitarian effort by the U.S. From 1978 through 1990 the U.S was the main support foundation for Siad Barre, a replica of Saddam Hussein at the time who according to Africa Watch (a human rights monitoring group based in Washington, DC) is responsible for killing about 50-60 thousand peoples.


The mission in the early 1990s regardless of what has happend since could be defined as humanitarian. Based on the efforts to distribute food in the quanaties it did.

United States forces and those of their allies gradually branched out from the airport and harbor of Mogadishu to the surrounding area. In succession they secured the Soviet-built airport at Baledogle (halfway to Baidoa), Baidoa, and then Chisimayu, Baardheere, Oddur, Beledweyne, and Jalalaqsi. The plan entailed setting up food distribution centers in each of the major areas affected by the famine and bringing in large quantities of food so as to eliminate looting and hoarding. By doing so, the operation would ensure that food was no longer a "power chip," thereby eliminating the role of the warlords. As the provision of food to southern Somalia reached massive proportions, however, it became clear that as a result of the August rains and resultant domestic crop production, it would be necessary to sell some of the donated grain in local markets at a suitable price in order to safeguard the livelihood of local farmers in the hinterland.
mother earth



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Big update:



Iranian MP: US Spy Plane shot down by Iran
FARS News Agency

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

Iranian military troops have shot down a spy plane of the US army during the last few days, an Iranian MP said here on Tuesday.

Representative of Dasht-e Azadegan at the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh also told FNA that the aircraft has been a spy drone of the US army and that it has been shot down when trying to cross the borders.

"Americans send such spy drones to the region every now and then," the lawmaker further pointed out.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
iran's nuclear development is the biggest threat israel has ever faced. israel has said for a long time that iran cannot be allowed to gain this capability. previously, the US thought israel might strike if they got worried enough - saving the US from the trouble. but now it has reached a critical point. since the US and the UN are doing very little, israel may be getting close to a strike. at this point, the only thing worse than an israeli strike on iran (for the mideast and the entire world) would be an israeli strike on iran that did not succeed. on their own, israel may not have the resources to succeed - despite being the biggest military power in the mideast. if the US felt an israeli attack on iran could be imminent, it would want to ensure that such an attack (if unavoidable) succeeds - but without bearing the brunt of the blame.

despite almost universal protest, the bush administration is sending more troops to iraq. which happens to be right next door to iran. if israel does attack iran, US troops will be in place to assist and to guarantee the success of such a mission. and also to protect israel from any massive retaliatory strikes. perhaps the US is starting to bear down on iran's activities in iraq now in order to help set the stage for helping israel - by revealing more of iran's nefarious activities which had previously been known (or suspected), but which had been tolerated for political & diplomatic reasons.

an israeli strike on iran is not inevitable, but since no one else is doing anything israel may have no choice.

i agree that this is probably the greatest threat israel has ever faced and that israel can't allow iran to gain nuclear capabilities. i think they'd prefer ANY other option rather than even a limited, strategic nuclear strike with low yield warheads. but the US and the world are not giving israel any real options and time has almost (if not already) run out. with US support on hand in the mideast, success would be more likely for an israeli strike on iran. and US support would also lesson the need to use nuclear warheads, since the US has a greater arsenal of conventional weaponry.

i don't think the US necessarily knows what israel is going to do, but israel has probably made it clear that they may attack soon if the US and UN don't stop iran before it's too late. moving troops and ships to the area (under the guise of an iraq mission), puts the US in a situation to jump in and help/mediate at the crucial moment if israel does indeed attack iran - perhaps eliminating or at least minimizing the need to use nuclear weapons. and once israel moves, the US can even use this to justify helping israel (damage control) and can claim that US troops just happened to be in the area due to the iraq situation.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by ThomasThomasThomas]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

under the guise of an iraq mission

Gates is saying himself that it's aimed at Iran...


they can even use this to justify their helping israel (damage control) and can claim their troops just happened to be in the area due to the iraq situation.

I hope the US population don't accept that.


but now it has reached a critical point.

BS, CIA and IEAI are saying that Iran are 10 years away from nukes. The immediate threat IS BS, just as Iraq's WMD were! Why in hell it is so hard to understand?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Israel, Israel, Israel, that is the biggest thread to our nation that any other country in the middle east, our sons and daughters to die for Israel piece of mind.

Wake up American, Iran is not thread to Israel but the unlimited supplies of oil for the region are and Israel needs them too.

Better, in the hands of the big US ally than on the infidels that happens to be the rightful owners of it even if the blood of innocents get spil.

Israel record of human rights is not a very merciful one and our own nations is becoming just like them.

Let Israel take care of itself and leave the sons and daughters of America alone, let the sons and daughters of Israel fight their own fights.

It should be God will if they survive or now.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   

but now it has reached a critical point
BS, CIA and IEAI are saying that Iran are 10 years away from nukes. The immediate threat IS BS, just as Iraq's WMD were! Why in hell it is so hard to understand?


Yes but the propaganda machine have most American believing already that Iran is going to nuke poor Israel and our sons and daughters has to give their lives helping the poor lonely country.

Plus many even think that Iran is going to nuke US.

What can I say we have a nation where people are so hook on the propaganda that they has stop thinking for themselves.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
i would love to know that Iran was indeed 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And i'm open to that idea. if i was in charge of the israeli military (ha), i wouldn't be able to launch an attack on iran unless i knew absolutely that they were only months away from bomb capability. and not just rumors. i guess my problem is that i give iran a lot of credit. there's a lot of brilliant fanatics in the world these days, as well as opportunists, and iran has a lot of money. and then there's the problem of russia's unsecured nuclear assets. i hope Ahmadinejad is all bravado, but part of me fears that there's bite behind his bark.

i try to read as much as i can about this situation and i'm really glad to hear opposing viewpoints. the trouble is that it's impossible to find any reliable info. i've read reports that say iran already has nuclear capability, that they are two months away, two years, and even a decade. it's hard to know what to believe. i used to assume that all the various countries had extensive spy networks, such that everyone pretty much knew what everyone else was doing. but more and more it sounds like reliable intelligence has become scarce. maybe those networks began shrinking after the cold war.

anyway, i love hearing more angles about this.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Just a note:

it's not a propaganda machine that has people worrying that iran is going to nuke israel. it's the fact that Ahmadinejad has said over and over to thousands of people that he plans to wipe israel off the map. and he continues to say that. if there's any propoaganda machine in place, i think it's actually an anti-israel propaganda machine. there's an interesting site that tracks all of the errors and falsehoods in the media about israel, exposes them, and then reports on their retractions (which most people never see since they aren't on the front page like the original stories) at honestreporting.com. since i've been reading that site's reports, i've been less critical of israel because it makes the whole situation even more complex.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Well said marg. And ThomasThomasThomas, the CIA know a lot of things, this time, they don't want to be blamed for false intel so they speak the truth: Iran is 10 years away from nuclear warheads. Russia and China don't want another nuclear armed country near them, they want Iran to remain ``intact`` and make money with them with their oil, that's why they ``protect`` it.

The only ones saying Iran is a threat is the Bush administration, the neo-cons and the zionists. They have been saying this since early 2000. In his speech about Iraq WMDs, Benyamin Netanyahou, an enemy of humanity IMO, was claiming that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons to compete with Iran nuclear weapons development. So back then, in 2003, he was already claiming that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. This is pure BS to bring another war and to do anything to bring their ``New Middle-east``. The doctrine of the neo-cons is chaos brings order... That's why they want to attack Iran, and bring Saudi Arabia to enter Iraq... to create chaos all around the middle-east... Those bastards



it's the fact that Ahmadinejad has said over and over to thousands of people that he plans to wipe israel off the map.

Well, every president in Iran must say that, either he won't be ``loved`` by the people, because in their view, Israël is an error of history and shouldn't be there. Just because they want a war with Iran now, they are reporting it all over the place to show as it would be new when in fact it isn't.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Double post.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Ahmadinejad is nothing than a man one man that was elected to be the prime minister of Iran, he has to answer to the higher powers of Iran because he do not rule alone and he is as vulnerable to the decisions of his parliament.

Right now, they are very upset with the situation that he has been creating for his country in the area.

People think that this man is the sole power ruler in Iran much like Bush has become in the US with his executive powers under a war.

But he is not.

Iran has nothing to win for nuking anybody in the middle east, land they do not need, resources they have.

But people are so taken by the subliminal propaganda of lonely miss interpreted and unloved nation of Israel that nobody is even taking the time to Think, just think what any country beside Palestine can win with having Israel nuke.

If Israel gets nuke, even Palestine will die, don’t you get it, the entire region will be unlivable for years.

Just like Japan after US decided to test its might.

I still wonder what in the world is wrong with people that cannot think for themselves, analyzed the situations, and allowed others do the thinking for them.

The only people to gain for going after Iran is the corporate power and the war profiteers behind the Bush administration.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Exactly, that's what I forgot to say, thanks marg... Ahmanejidad is not the ``executive`` power of Iran. He can say what he wants, he don't have the power over the army, the mullahs have it. And Ahmanejidad is playing the neo-cons agenda... hyping up the threat, giving them the propaganda they need to attack Iran and get rid of the mullahs... the mullahs are angry and Ahmanejidad have lost the support of both the people and the mullahs... So let's wait.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Well if reports coming out of Iran are any indication odds are whats his name has alienated so many both conservative and "liberal" elements in the Iranian power structure with his bilegerence and saber rattling that there is actually an impeachment movement growing against him. Maybe he and Bush can get together afterwards and comenserate.



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
What is really annoying to me is the virulent Anti-Americanism from my fellow Germans here. According to them, Bush is guilty of almost everything. I'm not a Bush friend either, but I still prefer the American Way of Life over living in an islamized Europe with Sharia Law. I am not sure if the germans share this view. At least not the radical left and right, they defend the Islamists and Al-Quida wherever they can and make the USA responible for everything.
Europe is lost anyway. In 30-50 Years, the Muslims will be in a Majority, they will form Parties and change the state from within. Maybe then these german Idiots will wake up. But it will be too late then, because it's already too late NOW.
Maybe i could get Asylum in the US before everyone in Europe will be forced to speak turkish or arabian and lift his behind 5 times a day to heaven ?
I am a Librarian and my English is, well, quite good for a German I think



[edit on 17-1-2007 by ZEV93]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join