The Official Conspiracy Theory

bill smith said:
Absolutely.
Click to expand...

that settles it then. you have just stated that you're not looking for evidence. Bravo. Bravo.
mow_ntro.jpg
 
Pinch said:
"Hard or compelling evidence" implies there is a rational mind at the other end to interpret such. Obviously, that is not the case here. Christopher7 is the classic - absolute *classic* - conspiracist in that he will demand excessive and hyper-specific evidence as proof of events, and even then will not admit to the event.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, where he chooses to believe that an event has taken place, in which case he will present the most tenuous indication as positive proof and be unable to understand why nobody else can see what is, to him, obvious. The proof of hijackings is many orders of magnitude more compelling than the disjointed collection of anecdotal evidence and photographic interpretation that C7 has so forcefully represented as hard and compelling evidence of molten metal at Ground Zero.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
If I was asked I would have to say that I don't think he was warning against bad language myself. In that case I think he would have said somethng like ' let's watch the language ladies' or something like that. Not ' be careful what you say....these tapes will be handed over'
Click to expand...

Sorry for interruption, but this line of resoning is dubious especially for the reason that we have a very similar comment on the NORAD Tapes:

Hey, just remember everything you say is being recorded. [...] The tape will be played back.
Click to expand...

And this is after Nasypany railing:

Why are we doing that? I’m gonna choke that guy.
Click to expand...

Source: NORAD-Tapes, DRM1 DAT2 Channel 2 MCC Op, 1h 4min (you can get them on 911Myths)
 
progge said:
Sorry for interruption, but this line of resoning is dubious especially for the reason that we have a very similar comment on the NORAD Tapes:



And this is after Nasypany railing:



Source: NORAD-Tapes, DRM1 DAT2 Channel 2 MCC Op, 1h 4min (you can get them on 911Myths)
Click to expand...

not sinister or spooky enough. your evidence, though backed up, is rejected. prepare to be called "shill"
 
I really am thinking that the truth movement isn't about terrorist apologists. It seems they may actually be terrorists.

Oh, not the sort with bombs and guns and such. Terror and uncertainty can be spread with words as well. They want to whip people into a frenzy of fear and hatred over the government. ("It was an INSIDE JOB! The government set it all up to stage wars, torture people and take away your rights! You're all Such SHEEPLE!")

They constantly ignore the evidence, thinking that if they 'ask enough questions', and find scraps to take out of context that others can be convinced. They don't want to discuss things rationally, they blindly follow their leaders, and accept anything they say. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that supports the 'inside job' hypothesis.

Are there anomalies, and problems? Sure. Happens in all investigations. But the evidence still overwhelmingly supports the official story.

Truthers are terrorists.
 
Shalamar said:
I really am thinking that the truth movement isn't about terrorist apologists. It seems they may actually be terrorists.

Oh, not the sort with bombs and guns and such. Terror and uncertainty can be spread with words as well. They want to whip people into a frenzy of fear and hatred over the government. ("It was an INSIDE JOB! The government set it all up to stage wars, torture people and take away your rights! You're all Such SHEEPLE!")

They constantly ignore the evidence, thinking that if they 'ask enough questions', and find scraps to take out of context that others can be convinced. They don't want to discuss things rationally, they blindly follow their leaders, and accept anything they say. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that supports the 'inside job' hypothesis.

Are there anomalies, and problems? Sure. Happens in all investigations. But the evidence still overwhelmingly supports the official story.

Truthers are terrorists.
Click to expand...

Obviously the situation is deteriorating with possibly some millions of people now openly questioning the Government story. It's more glaringly obvious than ever before that it's dangerously irresponsible of the government to stand in the way of the full and verifiably independent open enquiry with full powers of subpoena that those millions are demanding. The government can snuff out the conspiracy theories in a matter of weeks by opening themselves up to a thorough independent vetting. Failure to do this leaves them wide open to accusations of irresponsibility.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Talk to yourself much? You have not presented any evidence that the alleged hijackers were at the controls because you don't know of any. Instead, you try to change the subject.
Click to expand...


I'll guess that the records of conversations between passengers and crews on the hijacked aircraft and people on the ground are evidence. The remains of the hijackers found at the crash sites are another form of evidence. The hijackers' names and seating positions on the flight manifests are still another, but you knew that already.
 
Christopher7 said:
Being a skeptic means:
Not accepting what we are told without evidence to back it up.

The FBI has not charged OBL with 9/11.

Therefore the Official Story is a Conspiracy Theory.

Since we have been told from day 1 that OBL was responsible even though there is no hard evidence to that effect, we must ask: What evidence is there that the alleged "hijackers" actually planned and carried out the attacks?
Click to expand...



How many times do you need to see this article? Seriously, what is it with you people?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html?sub=AR
 
Shalamar said:
I really am thinking that the truth movement isn't about terrorist apologists. It seems they may actually be terrorists.

Oh, not the sort with bombs and guns and such. Terror and uncertainty can be spread with words as well. They want to whip people into a frenzy of fear and hatred over the government. ("It was an INSIDE JOB! The government set it all up to stage wars, torture people and take away your rights! You're all Such SHEEPLE!")

They constantly ignore the evidence, thinking that if they 'ask enough questions', and find scraps to take out of context that others can be convinced. They don't want to discuss things rationally, they blindly follow their leaders, and accept anything they say. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that supports the 'inside job' hypothesis.
Click to expand...
You have just described yourself. It is a favorite tactic of disinfo agents to accuse the opposition of what the disinfo agents are doing.
 
bill smith said:
If I was asked I would have to say that I don't think he was warning against bad language myself. In that case I think he would have said somethng like ' let's watch the language ladies' or something like that. Not ' be careful what you say....these tapes will be handed over'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olF0RAI6ETE repost

But then again I'm one of those who thinks that Larry Silversrein did not mean 'pull the firefighters out' when he said 'pull it'.
Click to expand...



Given that "pull it" does not have anything to do with explosives and IS a term firefighters use, what did he mean? You want another thread on this nonsense?
 
FineWine said:
Given that "pull it" does not have anything to do with explosives and IS a term firefighters use, what did he mean? You want another thread on this nonsense?
Click to expand...

For all that is holy NO. Please no more threads on "pull it".:hypnotize
 
bill smith said:
Obviously the situation is deteriorating with possibly some millions of people now openly questioning the Government story. It's more glaringly obvious than ever before that it's dangerously irresponsible of the government to stand in the way of the full and verifiably independent open enquiry with full powers of subpoena that those millions are demanding. The government can snuff out the conspiracy theories in a matter of weeks by opening themselves up to a thorough independent vetting. Failure to do this leaves them wide open to accusations of irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?
 
Christopher7 said:
"Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant."

Right. There is no hard evidence so he cannot be charged.

You have missed the point, as usual. The Official story is a Conspiracy Theory.
Click to expand...


YOU are claiming that I missed the point??? That's rich. Let's look at the part you predictably omitted.


"The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
 
Christopher7 said:
You have just described yourself. It is a favorite tactic of disinfo agents to accuse the opposition of what the disinfo agents are doing.
Click to expand...

Hee hee! The old I'm rubber you are glue defense.

Well played!

Still waiting for you to DAZZLE me with anything remotely close to evidence.
 
Everyone, please remember to focus on the topic, and not on each other. Please keep the thread civil.

ETA: Some posts moved to emphasise the point. Post on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Obviously the situation is deteriorating with possibly some millions of people now openly questioning the Government story.
Click to expand...

"millions" being zero in 2009, at least around Ground zero The eyewitnesses are smarter and more knowledgeable about 9/11 than children who weren't even watching the news i 2001. That's what the Toronto crowd appears to be.


Bill, have you ever met another Twoofer in the flesh in the USA?
 
Christopher7 said:
Good point.

Actually, he said he did not do it.
"I have already said that I am not involved with the 11 September attacks in the United States."
​
http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

And he is NOT wanted for the attacks on 9/11.
Click to expand...

OBL was not at the controls so are you attempting to cast doubt on who was at the controls by stating that a person who was not on the plane was not charged? A somewhat roundabout way of doing things.

Furthermore if the hijackers were not at the controls then either another suicidal person was or it was remote control. If it was a suicide then you have only replaced the person, not the motive. Had there been only one aircraft it could be written off as a simple suicide. It was 4 planes and thus a pact and given the evidence it certainly fits with the contention of a suicide terrorist attack.

The other option, a remote control is getting into the realm of the huge complicated and wholly unneccessary , Rube-Goldberg style, conspiracy. From there it blossoms into bombs in the WTC buildings, Silverstein' "pull it", CiT's twist on a no-plane theory (there was a plane it just did not hit the building). Going to the furthest extremes its Woods' space beams, or nukes, or extra-terrestrial attack.

So by Occam's well known way of slicing things it is quite logical to accept that 19 Islamic fundementalists who believe they are at war with the west, and the USA in particular, undertook a loosely co-ordinated multiple hijacking and suicide mission to attack the USA at targets that represented western/American power and influence.
 
FineWine said:
YOU are claiming that I missed the point??? That's rich. Let's look at the part you predictably omitted.


"The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This is a strawman statement. It merely confirms that there is no hard evidence that OBL was involved and therefore the official story is a conspiracy theory.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise,
Click to expand...
The conclusion is based on speculation just like conclusion that there were WMD's in Iraq. They have no hard evidence.

bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings.
Click to expand...
If that were true, it would be enough to get an indictment.

FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.
Click to expand...
Correct

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
Click to expand...
Double talk. If they had any evidence they would charge OBL with 9/11.
 
BigAl said:
"millions" being zero in 2009, at least around Ground zero The eyewitnesses are smarter and more knowledgeable about 9/11 than children who weren't even watching the news i 2001. That's what the Toronto crowd appears to be.


Bill, have you ever met another Twoofer in the flesh in the USA?
Click to expand...

If Bill Smith is the same Bill that posts on PfT then his math may be suspect.

PfT Bill divided change in altitude (in feet) by the time it took to do so (in minutes) and claimed to have arrived at a descent rate in feet per second.
and Cappy Robby did not correct him
 
Christopher7 said:
Double talk. If they had any evidence they would charge OBL with 9/11.
Click to expand...

If they were guilty of possibly the greatest hoax of all time, and it was suspicious he wasn't charged, don't you think they would have TRUMPED something up?

Your answer is double talk.
 
Christopher7 said:
Double talk. If they had any evidence they would charge OBL with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Hey Chris, I thought I mentioned yesterday that the FBI does not indict people. The United States Attorneys office does that. IIRC, by statute, the Most Wanted poster can be issued based only on crimes for the individual has been indicted.
 
jaydeehess said:
OBL was not at the controls so are you attempting to cast doubt on who was at the controls by stating that a person who was not on the plane was not charged? A somewhat roundabout way of doing things.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just pointing out that the official story is a conspiracy theory.

Furthermore if the hijackers were not at the controls then either another suicidal person was or it was remote control.
Click to expand...
That is a possibility. Operation Northwoods is proof that psychopaths within our government are willing to create a false flag event in order to take us to war.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong. This is a strawman statement. It merely confirms that there is no hard evidence that OBL was involved and therefore the official story is a conspiracy theory.

The conclusion is based on speculation just like conclusion that there were WMD's in Iraq. They have no hard evidence.

If that were true, it would be enough to get an indictment.

Correct

Double talk. If they had any evidence they would charge OBL with 9/11.
Click to expand...



So the FBI is saying that they have determined Osama's involvement in the planning of the attacks, but realize that he was not personally one of the terrorist hijackers. There is no "hard" evidence, such as fingerprints, bodily fluids, or documents. The FBI has already indicted Osama for other terrorist acts. How difficult is this for you?
I'm wondering how you see the FBI from your strange prism. Are they, or are they not, part of your giant conspiracy? If they are, why don't they get on the same page as everyone else? If they are not, why do you wave away the results of their investigation?
 
16.5 said:
Hey Chris, I thought I mentioned yesterday that the FBI does not indict people. The United States Attorneys office does that. IIRC, by statute, the Most Wanted poster can be issued based only on crimes for the individual has been indicted.
Click to expand...
Correct, OBL has not been indicted for the attacks on 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. Therefore, the official story is a conspiracy theory.
 
Christopher7 said:
That is a possibility. Operation Northwoods is proof that psychopaths within our government are willing to create a false flag event in order to take us to war.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking my post now Chris?

operation Northwoods did not take place. Operation Northwoods did not involve operatives committing suicide (IIRC). If you are claiming that 911 involved a huge complex and unneccessary plot you ae sinking fast.

Occam , again, would agree that the most logical conclusion to draw from al of the evidence for both lines of arguement would be;
to accept that 19 Islamic fundementalists who believe they are at war with the west, and the USA in particular, undertook a loosely co-ordinated multiple hijacking and suicide mission to attack the USA at targets that represented western/American power and influence
 
Christopher7 said:
No, I'm just pointing out that the official story is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Backed by a plethora of evidence. Your FBI garbage is a strawman argument.
That is a possibility. Operation Northwoods is proof that psychopaths within our government are willing to create a false flag event in order to take us to war.
Click to expand...
But that particular "false flag" op did not include the killing of American citizens. Even the killing of refugees was only a last ditch option. So this proves that the government wouldn't kill American citizens in a false flag op.
 
Christopher7 said:
Correct, OBL has not been indicted for the attacks on 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. Therefore, the official story is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

That's odd because I have watched amny programs about cold cases where the police 'know' who did it, or have a few suspects, but just do not have enough evidence on anyone. In the cold case shows of course they eventually do get a break on the case and bring the person to face justice.

However we both know that sometimes people do get away with it.

In OBL's case he has admitted it on tape and others have also implicated him. It is the perogative of the Justice Dept whether or not to bring charges. Simply because they have not done so does NOT indicate that he is innocent nor that there is not enough evidence to charge him.
 
Christopher7 said:
No, I'm just pointing out that the official story is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Finally! Something that make sense. Of COURSE it is a conspiracy theory. al Queada terrorists conspired to fly aircraft into US buildings and kill as many people as they can.

I applaud your ability to at least get *something* right. The stopped clock syndrome at its finest, although this would be called the stopped brain syndrome.
 
jaydeehess said:
Cherry picking my post now Chris?
Click to expand...
Yes. Cherry picking, as to call it, is cutting out the excess verbiage.

operation Northwoods did not take place. Operation Northwoods did not involve operatives committing suicide (IIRC). If you are claiming that 911 involved a huge complex and unneccessary plot you ae sinking fast.
Click to expand...
Operation Northwoods proves that psychopaths within our government are willing to stage a false falg event in order to take us to war and kill millions of people.

Occam , again, would agree that the most logical conclusion to draw from al of the evidence for both lines of arguement would be; to accept that 19 Islamic fundementalists who believe they are at war with the west, and the USA in particular, undertook a loosely co-ordinated multiple hijacking and suicide mission to attack the USA at targets that represented western/American power and influence
Click to expand...
Mohamid Atta and some of the others were NOT a fundamentalists.

Would someone planning to fly a plane into a building take his last will and testament on the airplane with him?
 
Pinch said:
Finally! Something that make sense. Of COURSE it is a conspiracy theory. al Queada terrorists conspired to fly aircraft into US buildings and kill as many people as they can.

I applaud your ability to at least get *something* right. The stopped clock syndrome at its finest, although this would be called the stopped brain syndrome.
Click to expand...
Thank you for acknowledging that the official story is a conspiracy theory.

Most Americans have been brainwashed into equating "conspiracy theory" with "nut job" when in fact what they believe a conspiracy theory. This is the result of a carefully crafted propaganda campaign to belittle anyone who questions the official conspiracy.
 
lapman said:
Backed by a plethora of evidence. Your FBI garbage is a strawman argument.
Click to expand...
No, it is a statement of fact. There is NO hard evidence that OBL was involved in the attacks on 9/11.

But that particular "false flag" op did not include the killing of American citizens. Even the killing of refugees was only a last ditch option. So this proves that the government wouldn't kill American citizens in a false flag op.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Americans would be killed if we went to war. Your inability to figure this out is a clear indication of your intelligence.
 
Pinch said:
"Hard or compelling evidence" implies there is a rational mind at the other end to interpret such. Obviously, that is not the case here. Christopher7 is the classic - absolute *classic* - conspiracist in that he will demand excessive and hyper-specific evidence as proof of events, and even then will not admit to the event. It is really the most pure proof that most Conspiracy theorists are, in reality, unable to grasp the meaning of large and important events in this world - they can't handle the ramifications or understand that (call it what you will) Acts of God occur. Bad things happen! "Prove it", is the demand. When you provide proof, the response is "More proof". When you provide yet more, the response is " Proof. Prove it", as if you are debating bedtime with a child. When faced with unimpeachable evidence of something happening, the denial becomes "Lies. Fabrications. Falsehoods. Everyone is in on it". It really is the most entertaining part of this whole game. We know nobody on the whacked-out moonbat side of this game will ever do anything about these claims they have, so we can just sit back and watch them make fools of themselves, yet again, on internet discussion fora.
Click to expand...
I gave him proof of the terrorist with ATC tape, CVR tape, and FDR showing the transmission was made to the second from Flight 93. Triple verification from three hard sources. And he ignores the proof.

What is this called when you prove 1+1+1=3 and the person asking or arguing against it still comes up with zero?

I was able to in a few minutes find transcripts from the FAA, match then to transcripts from the CVR (cockpit voice recorder), and presented the exact location of the keyed VHF radio on flight 93 for the event. Why can't 911Truth find these things and use logic?

You can beat those who spew delusions with research and logic and produce the required presentation to show them wrong. 911Truth is not interested in what is correct, they are certain they are right so what the they say, the delusions they have, is correct in their evidence free minds.

I thought Chris could understand what I found by tying tapes from two independent locations of the murdering terrorist talking from the "left seat" of Flight 93. He was sitting in the left seat of flight 93 pressing the VHF transmit button by mistake captured by FAA tapes, and his own CVR recording in the cockpit, and caught pressing the button at the same time on the FDR. The hard evidence 911Truth whines for is ignored and they go on to spew and regurgitate more delusions as BillSmith comes to spam and join in drive-by delusion dropping.
 
Drive-by delusion dropping. We call that the Big DDD in the business.
 
Christopher7 said:
Thank you for acknowledging that the official story is a conspiracy theory.

Most Americans have been brainwashed into equating "conspiracy theory" with "nut job" when in fact what they believe a conspiracy theory. This is the result of a carefully crafted propaganda campaign to belittle anyone who questions the official conspiracy.
Click to expand...
The plot to do 911 was a conspiracy. The plot was executed. Pinch expected you to connect the dots given the facts but you would rather rant about some wars. Chris, this is about your 911 failed ideas not a war.

The anti-war forum is not here. If you could concentrate on 911 and stop ignoring the thousands and thousand of piece of evidence you would not be spewing the lies from 911Truth.

Yes the nut job ideas are held by 911Truth and they deny there were 19 terrorists to blame them selves for people killing them. You choose to apologize for terrorists by making up or it seems simply repeating failed ideas form 911Truth sources or bring up ideas with nothing to do with 911 being a conspiracy by 19 terrorists.

I proved there were terrorists on board flight 93 and one of them was in the left seat taking on the radio. You were given the evidence and it seems you are still spewing lies from 911 truth as fast as you can google them off the internet.

So do you understand there were terrorist on Flight 93?

Do you understand there was no paper trail of the plot (the OP) because it was simple and did not need to be written down.

I proved even a moron like me (and you agreed; I got you to agree with me; it is a trick used by SAC trained killers) can memorize the complex plot of the terrorists and even did a blindfold typing of the plot which I now repeat for the pleasure of all; a pilot typing with out sight the plot of 911, the complex plot from memory; here goes:

Kill pilots, fly planes ito buildings. done...

oops I messed up "into" ito, looks like the plot will fail as I wonder what "ito" means! I guess it is a complex plot.

So this answer why there was not paper trail of the plot written down it can be stored in the mind of the terrorists.

OP solved... The plot was memorized and no paper was left or used to plan the complex plot. 911Truth uses the same method that is why the story is different or does not exist for them to repeat. I guess the terrorists are better at remembering the 911 plot than 911Truth is at making up a 911 plot.

You have no plot or clue what happen on 911; you repeat the lies from 911 truth. Please explain why the FAA tapes, and the CVR, and the FDR are not solid evidence for proof of the terrorist in the left seat when they are verified by real pilots who heard the same information while flying on 911? How many people are now in on the delusional plot you have in your head?
 
Last edited:
Jesus Chris, you must be frustrated. You're using every tactic, saying every catch phrase you can possibly utter; "paid disinfo agent", "Northwoods", "propaganda", in a desperate attempt to convince somebody, anybody, that you're not just some irrational spittle-spewing ideologue on an internet forum.

If this were a street corner in a city you'd be that wild-eyed old man we all know and love. Him I'd just step over and get on with my life. With you, all I do is turn my trusty FireFox brower off and POOF. You and your delightful little movement disappear.

It's just grand.
 
16.5 said:
Hey Chris, I thought I mentioned yesterday that the FBI does not indict people. The United States Attorneys office does that. IIRC, by statute, the Most Wanted poster can be issued based only on crimes for the individual has been indicted.
Click to expand...

And as I understand it, An indictment requires a decision by a Grand Jury and since the Bush Administration (hiss boo) has consistently refused to treat terrorism as a criminal matter, a GJ was never convened.

ObL is on the list of wanted terrorists and there is a $27 million bounty on him.

http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/bin_ladin.html

Usama Bin Ladin is wanted in connection with the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and for the 7 August 1998 bombings of the US Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. The embassy bombings killed 224 civilians and wounded more than 5,000 others. Usama Bin Ladin and other terrorists—specifically Ayman al-Zawahiri, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam, Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Saif al-Adel, Anas al-Liby, Ahmed Mohamed Hamed Ali, and others already in custody—are members of al-Qa‘ida, the international terrorist network headed by Bin Ladin.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom