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.
The 911 Report Get it here!
page: 1share:
Ok this will be a long post and a long read, my quotes from the 911 report will be in italics so you can see the exact wording of the report.
EDIT : Here get it yourSelf, read it, then form an opinion.
www.9-11commission.gov...
Edit:It seems that the proof of the intent of G. W. Bush announced before hand goes unchallenged in this thread. Iraq was not a legit war because of no WMD, yet that is not all that Bush said. I have laid out the proof and yet....silence............
THE PLAN IS LAIDOUT PLAINLY
(1) First, what did Bush say he would do after 911? And to whom does he directly refer? Well he made a speech that lined out our strategy and just what that strategy was..
Having issued directives to guide his administration�s preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. �Tonight,� he said, �we are a country awakened to danger.� The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was �responsible for bombing the USS Cole.� He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. �The Taliban must act, and act immediately,� he said. �They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.� The President added that America�s quarrel was not with Islam: �The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every [emphasis mine] government that supports them.� Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: �Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.�
President Bush argued that the new war went beyond Bin Ladin. �Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there,� he said. �It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. �The President had a message for the Pentagon: �The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.� He also had a message for those outside the United States. �This is civilization�s fight,� he said. �We ask every nation to join us.�
So as you can see, here Bush says that this is a much bigger war than just al Qaeda and Afghanistan. It is a fight against global terrorism. Keep in mind that this was long before the Iraq war. He asks for the nations of the world to join this fight, but he states very vividly, that the choice is theirs. You either join in this fight or you join the terrorists and share in the wrath that is to come.
So now that this is clear, and most here would agree that the war with Afghanistan was the right thing to do at this time. Even most countries of the world agreed. Pakistan had one tough choice and if asked, I can post just what the ultimatum given to them was but that is not in the scope of this thread at this time.
THE IRAQI QUESTION
Many seem to believe that Iraq was in GW Bush's sights long before 911 and in some degree this is correct, but it also was in Clinton's before him.
What Iraqi / 911 non-connection does the 911 report refer to? Well lets step back a second and look at the time in the first weeks after 911. What was the Presidents reaction and interest in Iraq? Well I find this very telling of the man and his assessment of the situation. Let me start with a meeting to discuss the options and targets.
On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead. When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.
-The Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer.
-The Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.
-Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein�s regime.
- no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons
So did the President actually now want to go after Iraq? Well this is quite telling also. General Franks had something already in mind, yet the President says no.
Franks told us that he was pushing independently to do more robust planning on military responses in Iraq during the summer before 9/11�a request President Bush denied, arguing that the time was not right. (CENTCOM also began dusting off plans for a full invasion of Iraq during this period, Franks said.) The CENTCOM commander told us he renewed his appeal for further military planning to respond to Iraqi moves shortly after 9/11, both because he personally felt that Iraq and al Qaeda might be engaged in some form of collusion and because he worried that Saddam might take advantage of the attacks to move against his internal enemies in the northern or southern parts of Iraq, where the United States was flying regular missions to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. Franks said that President Bush again turned down the request.
But as noted earlier, some within the administration wanted to attack Iraq also. Why? Well just who were these people? Well let�s have a look,
Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined �Preventing More Events, �he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were �far more� than 1 in 10, citing Saddam�s praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef�s co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis� involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a �failure of imagination� and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities.
There are many more instances in which the President struck down an attack on Iraq. So Lets go back to that day, Sept. 11th.
On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to obtain quickly as much information as possible. The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the U.S. response should consider a wide range of options and possibilities. The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time�not only Bin Ladin. Secretary Rumsfeld later explained that at the time, he had been considering either one of them, or perhaps someone else, as the responsible party
Well it looks like Rumsfeld was attempting to get as much information together as quickly as possible to find out just who had committed this horror. Camp David would be were the policy was made.
According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during �this round� of the war on terrorism.
Again Mr. Wolfowitz was heavily in favor of attacking Iraq at this point. Just what did this man have against Iraq? At this point the President is not concentrating on Iraq, he is concentrating on Afghanistan and just how to depose of the Taliban.
A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq�s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz�not Rumsfeld�argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. �Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,� Powell told us. �And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.� Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz�s argument �much weight.� Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.
It seems that again Mr. Wolfowitz wanted to strike Iraq quickly. Iraq had indeed been a problem for a long while and was supporting terror, but to claim that Iraq was at the root of the terrorist problem? What would make him think this? What did he know or not know? He seems pretty adamant about Iraq.
]President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan. Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
I will love to continue this as I am sure most here have not read any of the 911 report. I find it very interesting and would highly recommend everyone buy a copy. It will give you a better picture of this war that we face.
As noted at the beginning, President Bush laid out what the plan was. �Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every [emphasis mine] government that supports them.� The report tells of many of the al Qaeda�s connections with the whole Islamic fundamentalist movements and Iraq�s involvement in the network of world terror. This war is not against just Afghanistan or Iraq, it is a war on the whole network of terror. This would include nations that harbor, fund, or support terrorists.
So then Saudi Arabia comes to my mind, how about yours? Well the 911 Report does a pretty decent job of telling how the Saudis helped the United States, as does Pakistan.
Coming�.Part II The alliances that are and those that weren�t�..
[edit on 15-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]
EDIT : Here get it yourSelf, read it, then form an opinion.
www.9-11commission.gov...
Edit:It seems that the proof of the intent of G. W. Bush announced before hand goes unchallenged in this thread. Iraq was not a legit war because of no WMD, yet that is not all that Bush said. I have laid out the proof and yet....silence............
THE PLAN IS LAIDOUT PLAINLY
(1) First, what did Bush say he would do after 911? And to whom does he directly refer? Well he made a speech that lined out our strategy and just what that strategy was..
Having issued directives to guide his administration�s preparations for war, on Thursday, September 20, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. �Tonight,� he said, �we are a country awakened to danger.� The President blamed al Qaeda for 9/11 and the 1998 embassy bombings and, for the first time, declared that al Qaeda was �responsible for bombing the USS Cole.� He reiterated the ultimatum that had already been conveyed privately. �The Taliban must act, and act immediately,� he said. �They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.� The President added that America�s quarrel was not with Islam: �The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every [emphasis mine] government that supports them.� Other regimes faced hard choices, he pointed out: �Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.�
President Bush argued that the new war went beyond Bin Ladin. �Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there,� he said. �It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. �The President had a message for the Pentagon: �The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.� He also had a message for those outside the United States. �This is civilization�s fight,� he said. �We ask every nation to join us.�
So as you can see, here Bush says that this is a much bigger war than just al Qaeda and Afghanistan. It is a fight against global terrorism. Keep in mind that this was long before the Iraq war. He asks for the nations of the world to join this fight, but he states very vividly, that the choice is theirs. You either join in this fight or you join the terrorists and share in the wrath that is to come.
So now that this is clear, and most here would agree that the war with Afghanistan was the right thing to do at this time. Even most countries of the world agreed. Pakistan had one tough choice and if asked, I can post just what the ultimatum given to them was but that is not in the scope of this thread at this time.
THE IRAQI QUESTION
Many seem to believe that Iraq was in GW Bush's sights long before 911 and in some degree this is correct, but it also was in Clinton's before him.
What Iraqi / 911 non-connection does the 911 report refer to? Well lets step back a second and look at the time in the first weeks after 911. What was the Presidents reaction and interest in Iraq? Well I find this very telling of the man and his assessment of the situation. Let me start with a meeting to discuss the options and targets.
On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead. When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.
-The Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer.
-The Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.
-Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein�s regime.
- no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons
So did the President actually now want to go after Iraq? Well this is quite telling also. General Franks had something already in mind, yet the President says no.
Franks told us that he was pushing independently to do more robust planning on military responses in Iraq during the summer before 9/11�a request President Bush denied, arguing that the time was not right. (CENTCOM also began dusting off plans for a full invasion of Iraq during this period, Franks said.) The CENTCOM commander told us he renewed his appeal for further military planning to respond to Iraqi moves shortly after 9/11, both because he personally felt that Iraq and al Qaeda might be engaged in some form of collusion and because he worried that Saddam might take advantage of the attacks to move against his internal enemies in the northern or southern parts of Iraq, where the United States was flying regular missions to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. Franks said that President Bush again turned down the request.
But as noted earlier, some within the administration wanted to attack Iraq also. Why? Well just who were these people? Well let�s have a look,
Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq. Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined �Preventing More Events, �he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were �far more� than 1 in 10, citing Saddam�s praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef�s co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis� involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a �failure of imagination� and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities.
There are many more instances in which the President struck down an attack on Iraq. So Lets go back to that day, Sept. 11th.
On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to obtain quickly as much information as possible. The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the U.S. response should consider a wide range of options and possibilities. The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time�not only Bin Ladin. Secretary Rumsfeld later explained that at the time, he had been considering either one of them, or perhaps someone else, as the responsible party
Well it looks like Rumsfeld was attempting to get as much information together as quickly as possible to find out just who had committed this horror. Camp David would be were the policy was made.
According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during �this round� of the war on terrorism.
Again Mr. Wolfowitz was heavily in favor of attacking Iraq at this point. Just what did this man have against Iraq? At this point the President is not concentrating on Iraq, he is concentrating on Afghanistan and just how to depose of the Taliban.
A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq�s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz�not Rumsfeld�argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. �Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,� Powell told us. �And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.� Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz�s argument �much weight.� Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.
It seems that again Mr. Wolfowitz wanted to strike Iraq quickly. Iraq had indeed been a problem for a long while and was supporting terror, but to claim that Iraq was at the root of the terrorist problem? What would make him think this? What did he know or not know? He seems pretty adamant about Iraq.
]President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan. Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
I will love to continue this as I am sure most here have not read any of the 911 report. I find it very interesting and would highly recommend everyone buy a copy. It will give you a better picture of this war that we face.
As noted at the beginning, President Bush laid out what the plan was. �Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every [emphasis mine] government that supports them.� The report tells of many of the al Qaeda�s connections with the whole Islamic fundamentalist movements and Iraq�s involvement in the network of world terror. This war is not against just Afghanistan or Iraq, it is a war on the whole network of terror. This would include nations that harbor, fund, or support terrorists.
So then Saudi Arabia comes to my mind, how about yours? Well the 911 Report does a pretty decent job of telling how the Saudis helped the United States, as does Pakistan.
Coming�.Part II The alliances that are and those that weren�t�..
[edit on 15-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 18-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]
[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]
the war on terrorism cannot be defined, it is whatever we feel like doing whenever we feel like it...that's what we do...plain and simple
terrorist countries have trash leaking out of their yard....keep it in your yard and you have nothing to worry about......
when have you heard ANYONE ANYONE Islamic denounce terrorism and actually lay their lives on the line to stop it.......
if you kill EVERY Muslim on earth THAT WILL definitely stop terrorism....you start there and work your way backwards......
solaris
terrorist countries have trash leaking out of their yard....keep it in your yard and you have nothing to worry about......
when have you heard ANYONE ANYONE Islamic denounce terrorism and actually lay their lives on the line to stop it.......
if you kill EVERY Muslim on earth THAT WILL definitely stop terrorism....you start there and work your way backwards......
solaris
if you kill EVERY Muslim on earth THAT WILL definitely stop terrorism....you start there and work your way backwards......
I sincerely hope that you are not serious. This must be the most offensive statement that I have read on these boards so far.
Originally posted by solaris
when have you heard ANYONE ANYONE Islamic denounce terrorism and actually lay their lives on the line to stop it.......
Ok Pakistan has a few for one.......How about some Iraqi's. But in essense you are mostly right. Al Jezzera seems to be the opposite.
Originally posted by solaris
if you kill EVERY Muslim on earth THAT WILL definitely stop terrorism....you start there and work your way backwards......
That would make us no better than them.
PS...Should I proceed later with Part II, It takes a while to do what I did, Unless it is available online.....
[edit on 15-10-2004 by edsinger]
why is this offensive....?
if the people always stirring up # in the world are of a certain readily identifiable background then you would be idiotic to ignore this.....
it doesn't matter what THEY want.......they are not a legitimate voice...period
the fact is...the peaceful Muslims could clean this up overnight if they REALLY wanted to...they just need a little ...ahem...incentive.....
if the people always stirring up # in the world are of a certain readily identifiable background then you would be idiotic to ignore this.....
it doesn't matter what THEY want.......they are not a legitimate voice...period
the fact is...the peaceful Muslims could clean this up overnight if they REALLY wanted to...they just need a little ...ahem...incentive.....
You want me to explain to you why the suggestion of genocide, fueled by the acceptance of a negative stereotype, is offensive?
Sorry, I wouldn't know where to begin...anyone else?
Sorry, I wouldn't know where to begin...anyone else?
How old are you, solaris? Tell us a little about your background. Any abuse at home?
Originally posted by edsinger
Originally posted by solaris
when have you heard ANYONE ANYONE Islamic denounce terrorism and actually lay their lives on the line to stop it.......
Ok Pakistan has a few for one.......How about some Iraqi's. But in essense you are mostly right. Al Jezzera seems to be the opposite.
Pakistan has done nothing...every time we turn up the heat...they catch a couple "high-value" targets they take us to the dance but go home with someone else...just like Saudi Arabia......what is this "we cant cross over into Pakistan" #........if they were serious they would lay out a red carpet......
Originally posted by solaris
if you kill EVERY Muslim on earth THAT WILL definitely stop terrorism....you start there and work your way backwards......
That would make us no better than them.
that is a cop out...we ARE better than them...we're Americans!!!! whatever we do is fine...forever
it simply can't be any other way and you know it!!!
PS...Should I proceed later with Part II, It takes a while to do what I did, Unless it is available online.....
[edit on 15-10-2004 by edsinger]
Originally posted by Deckard_BR26354
Solaris, you're looking more like a troll.
sorry you took the easy way out....hohum
do you feel better now?
solaris
Originally posted by Durden
How old are you, solaris? Tell us a little about your background. Any abuse at home?
typical .......sigh
A little Pre-Emptive Strike Here, Please Keep discussion to Topic, and no personal attacks
Originally posted by Deckard_BR26354
Thought so. I've no further questions.
if you NEED to tell yourself that, its OK......
Originally posted by solaris
if the people always stirring up # in the world are of a certain readily identifiable background then you would be idiotic to ignore this.....
Take a look at a list of the people who have been killed in wars and genocides over the past hundered years and tell me if there's one group of people who's responsible. Wars, Battles and Empires
It looks to me like Europeans, Americans and Asians have killed more people than Muslims.
Solaris, Durden and Deckard_BR26354, Please discuss this via u2u if your inclined to do so. Please stick to the Topic
[edit on 15-10-2004 by TrickmastertricK]
[edit on 15-10-2004 by TrickmastertricK]
Well solaris, I can't say I'm surprised that you find it 'typical' to be questioned as to your age and your situation at home.
Back to topic; explain how exactly you find it acceptable to promote genocide?
[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]
Back to topic; explain how exactly you find it acceptable to promote genocide?
[edit on 15-10-2004 by Durden]
Originally posted by AceOfBase
Originally posted by solaris
if the people always stirring up # in the world are of a certain readily identifiable background then you would be idiotic to ignore this.....
Take a look at a list of the people who have been killed in wars and genocides over the past hundered years and tell me if there's one group of people who's responsible. Wars, Battles and Empires
It looks to me like Europeans, Americans and Asians have killed more people than Muslims.
what relevance does the past hold today......hold on , I'll answer that for you.....NONE
those who ignore history are destined to repeat it......blah blah blah
I would please ask that we cease this # and get back to the 911 report.
new topics
-
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago -
Who guards the guards
US Political Madness: 4 hours ago -
Has Tesla manipulated data logs to cover up auto pilot crash?
Automotive Discussion: 5 hours ago -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
CIA botched its handling of sexual assault allegations, House intel report says
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 11 flags -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago, 10 flags -
Who guards the guards
US Political Madness: 4 hours ago, 8 flags -
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness: 1 hours ago, 6 flags -
1980s Arcade
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 5 flags -
Teenager makes chess history becoming the youngest challenger for the world championship crown
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 4 flags -
Deadpool and Wolverine
Movies: 13 hours ago, 4 flags -
Has Tesla manipulated data logs to cover up auto pilot crash?
Automotive Discussion: 5 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Strange Humanoid-Shaped Object Captured On Film In The Skies Over California
Aliens and UFOs • 23 • : Consvoli -
IDF Intel Chief Resigns Over Hamas attack
Middle East Issues • 39 • : HopeForTheFuture -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 667 • : network dude -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 228 • : FlyersFan -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs • 13 • : 38181 -
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness • 10 • : network dude -
Deadpool and Wolverine
Movies • 3 • : 5thHead -
Europe declares war on Russia?
World War Three • 62 • : 777Vader -
1980s Arcade
General Chit Chat • 13 • : Bluntone22 -
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media • 110 • : Annee