Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000  
User currently offlineBofredrik From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2192 times:

Stephen C. Pelletiere, the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, head of a 1991 US Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and author of Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf.

And here is Pelletiere's article:

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iraq2.html

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7429 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just another conspiracy theorist:

ECHANICSBURG, Pa. -
There is no such place in PA, There's a Mechanicsburg. The fact they don't proof-read their op-ed pieces, makes me doubt their assertions. No credibility.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Just another conspiracy theorist:

No he isn't. Did you read the whole article? Also, look at Pelletiere's credentials:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...my.mil/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=32

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
ECHANICSBURG, Pa. -
There is no such place in PA, There's a Mechanicsburg. The fact they don't proof-read their op-ed pieces, makes me doubt their assertions. No credibility.

The first link had it wrong and ommitted the "M" accidentally. Here's the original from the NY Times (requires registration):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/op...L.html?pagewanted=all&position=top


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7429 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2144 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 2):
No he isn't. Did you read the whole article? Also, look at Pelletiere's credentials:

Yes I read the article, and nothing in there can be presented as fact, just hypothises. These all opinions of one man, who happens to have a resume. It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages. None of this could ever be proven unless the Iranians admit to something like this, which I doubt they would, even if there was credible evidence to suggest that this actually was the case.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Just more proof that anything that threatens your viewpoint is a conspiracy theorist.

This guy was an analyst during that war, and during that war the CIA was giving intelligence, training, weapons, etc. to BOTH Iraq and Iran. I'd say if anybody knew who was doing what, it would be that guy.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war

Yes of course, they don't just print the news and opinions, they have an agenda! Boy if only every news organization could be as level headed as the WSJ and Faux News


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

I side with JetJack on this one. I don't see any hard evidence, on a website source I've never heard of, and it really has no documentation to back it up.

I think the most likely premise was the original one-that Saddam killed those people. He certainly had done it before, and did it afterwards, so I'll stick with believing that till I see something credible to back up the claim Iran did it.

I think the author of this thread, someone known to be pretty anti-US, is fishing for a red herring here, nothing else. And remember-I'm as big a critic of this war as anyone, but I think this is just anti-US propoganda here.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
but I think this is just anti-US propoganda here.

From a CIA agent who probably was there during that??

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
I think the author of this thread, someone known to be pretty anti-US, is fishing for a red herring here, nothing else.

LOL!

I think you have a identical twin, your current self runs around pretending to be an intelligent moderate who is willing to see all sides of the issue even without using the critical thinking it takes to make a decision


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
I think the author of this thread, someone known to be pretty anti-US, is fishing for a red herring here, nothing else.

 checkmark 

Find some corroboration and I'll rethink this but for now: Propaganda, nothing more. . . the Analysts Credientials notwithstanding. . . we all know how accurate our CIA intelligence appears to have been of late . . .


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.

Clearly you hadn't been reading all the pro-war garbage it published, courtesy of a certain Judith Miller.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 6):
From a CIA agent who probably was there during that??

You're taking as Gospel someone who MIGHT HAVE been there? Maybe the guy has been RIF'd and is doing the old Potomic Two-Step of grinding an ax? It's been done before.

I see nothing that give creedence to this story. Nothing. Could Iran have done it? It's possible, but I've never seen anything to corroborate that story. The best evidence seen today says it was Saddam.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
You're taking as Gospel someone who MIGHT HAVE been there? Maybe the guy has been RIF'd and is doing the old Potomic Two-Step of grinding an ax? It's been done before.

Umm, gospel? No. I just said if anyone would have had the information it would be someone like him

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
I see nothing that give creedence to this story. Nothing. Could Iran have done it? It's possible, but I've never seen anything to corroborate that story. The best evidence seen today says it was Saddam.

Nothing? Please please please don't ever be a lawyer or a judge


User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
Yes I read the article, and nothing in there can be presented as fact, just hypothises.

This isn't a hypothesis, it's an admission:

...the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds.

Just because he believes the DIA (not CIA) report, it doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. However, said report isn't the only point-of-view on the situation, but even this article on Wikipedia asserts there's some ambiguity on the attack on Halabja and that the sole perpetrators being the Iraqi military is not a foregone conclusion.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Find some corroboration and I'll rethink this but for now: Propaganda, nothing more. . . the Analysts Credientials notwithstanding. . . we all know how accurate our CIA intelligence appears to have been of late . . .

In this report written for the US Army War College by Pelletiere and a colleague back in 1990, they came to this conclusion based on the evidence available to them. Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the report, on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"? This report wasn't propaganda piece.

That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index_np.html


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

B744F, unlike you, I'm not ready to excoriate the Bush Administration over everything, despite some of my critics who say otherwise. If I thnk this is credible, I'd say so on here. I don't think, in essence, an unsourced article gives credibility to a major incident like this. I just don't.

Again, being anti-Bush is one thing. I'm anti-Bush. Being blindingly so, like you are, tells me you don't think, you just react. Sorry, but that's how I see it here.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 11):
Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the report, on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"?

Jeff, I never said the USMC Combat Development Command, or anything else, was a "kooky lib webpage". You've got your posters mixed up.

What I said was - if this guy is a CIA operative/analyst, etc, any findings he may or may not have might be suspect.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 11):
That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate.

I also didn't say that . . . .

Although I think the NYT is a bit too far to the left for my taste, it's generally a decent paper. I read it occasionally . . . .


User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2030 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Jeff, I never said the USMC Combat Development Command, or anything else, was a "kooky lib webpage". You've got your posters mixed up.

What I said was - if this guy is a CIA operative/analyst, etc, any findings he may or may not have might be suspect.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 11):
That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate.

I also didn't say that . . . .

No, no, no!

I was referring to JetJack's comments from Reply 3 in both of those instances. I was trying to address his quotes and yours with one response but I can see how that was confusing and I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way, it was unintentional on my part.

Hopefully, this will make things more clear:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Find some corroboration and I'll rethink this but for now: Propaganda, nothing more. . . the Analysts Credientials notwithstanding. . . we all know how accurate our CIA intelligence appears to have been of late . . .

In this report written for the US Army War College by Pelletiere and a colleague back in 1990, they came to this conclusion based on the evidence available to them. It doesn't look like a propaganda piece.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.

Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the abovementioned report (on which Pelletiere's editorial was based), on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"?  Yeah sure

That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index_np.html

-Jeff


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2022 times:

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way, it was unintentional on my part.

No worries . . . .

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

The "conclusion" doesn't appear on the surface to be Propaganda. . . granted. But I all evidence, save this document, points to Saddam as the culprit. As I said earlier - anything is possible, and everything is suspect . . .

The report cites that they don't think Iraq had the capability at the point the attacks occured in Halabja. It further states they believe the Iranians did, and therefore they are saying the Iranians are responsible. With no evidence to the contrary, I can't dispute the report. That said, given Saddam's history, on his own people and his enemies, I'm simply not convinced.

I will say, at this point, I don't think it's propaganda . . . rather an inconclusive investigation.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7429 posts, RR: 50
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

Really? Then you aren't reading The New York Times Jeff. The New York Times is EXTREMELY liberal. Judy Miller is one of only 2 reporters there who wrote favourable op-ed pieces on the war. The rest of the reporting there is grossly anti-war.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 16):
Really? Then you aren't reading The New York Times Jeff. The New York Times is EXTREMELY liberal. Judy Miller is one of only 2 reporters there who wrote favourable op-ed pieces on the war. The rest of the reporting there is grossly anti-war.

Yes, really. They're EXTREMELY liberal how JJ? Do you have an example?

Any newspaper which regularly features William Safire, David Brooks, John Tierney, Bill Friedman and Judith Miller can't be EXTREMELY liberal. It seems they have a well balanced collection of op-ed contributors from the left, center and right. Evidently, you're not reading the Times either...

Also, you never answered my question from before. If the Times is so liberal, what does the make the USMC Combat Development Command?

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.

Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the abovementioned report (on which Pelletiere's editorial was based), on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"?



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):

I will say, at this point, I don't think it's propaganda . . . rather an inconclusive investigation.

Fair enough. The point I was trying to make to everyone is that the editorial shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as liberal propaganda or a conspiracy theory. I'd like to see the classified version of the 1991 report which featured the details on the Halabja attack but, unfortunately, it's not privy to us.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7429 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 17):
Any newspaper which regularly features William Safire, David Brooks, John Tierney, Bill Friedman and Judith Miller can't be EXTREMELY liberal. It seems they have a well balanced collection of op-ed contributors from the left, center and right. Evidently, you're not reading the Times either...

If I actually gave a crap, I could pick up a copy of the NYT, and point out the stories in the front page section. With my eyes closed, my middle finger could land on a liberal slanted story. They, as does the Washington Post, and the LA Times take swipes at the Bush Administration constantly. I'll admit I very seldom read it anymore because it's the same story everyday. They had 76 straight days on Abu Ghraib stories on the front page trying implicate the Bush Administration with some of the most outrageous stories that ended up going nowhere, including Judy Millers WMD story which was never printed. She was pulled from the story before she could finish.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

They're not in hot water, the propaganda and the hype make it look that way. Matt Cooper, Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove are the ones in the hotseat, not the NYT. The papers credibility is hurt because they hung one of their reporters out to dry and pressed her to come clean about her sources instead of protecting them and their sources.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 17):
Also, you never answered my question from before. If the Times is so liberal, what does the make the USMC Combat Development Command?

Ok i'll answer it. The report chronicles the 8 year Iran-Iraq War(of which we(the public) know little about what actually went on, except that thousands of Iranians died from chemical and biological attacks by Saddam). And in it, predicts possible senarios the coalition forces could face, of which we now know were grossly overestimated. The Iraqi's hardly put up a fight. Your man Pelletiere says that "Iraq and Saddam was not known to have these nerve and blood agents", but we know full well that after his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War, that he did have stockpiles on VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Napalm when the UN weapons inspector tagged and bagged the stuff. We have videos as evidence that he used it. So he's either in a fog or he's lying about his assertions. The NYT can use some outdated dossier as a source, doesn't mean it's fact, nor does it prove your point though. Nuff said? Great.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
If I actually gave a crap, I could pick up a copy of the NYT, and point out the stories in the front page section. With my eyes closed, my middle finger could land on a liberal slanted story.

So EVERYTHING printed in the NY Times has a liberal slant? That's a pretty black & white point of view.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
They're not in hot water, the propaganda and the hype make it look that way.

What propaganda? According to this article in Wikipedia, it seems that mainstream observers of the press disagree with you (even someone from the Washington Post, which regularly takes swipes at the Bush Administration):

In October 2005, Judith Miller was released from prison after an 85-day stay, when she agreed to testify to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. She said she finally relented only after receiving a personal waiver, both on the phone and in writing, of her earlier confidential source agreement with Scooter Libby, although Libby's lawyer claimed the offer of a waiver had been standing for a year. After Miller's appearance before the grand jury, she was released from her contempt of court finding, after which the New York Times became free to write their own account of the affair. This account [11] was published on October 16, along with a personal account by Miller [12]. However, these accounts were widely criticized as revealing even more flaws and failings of both Miller and the Times than they answered, including uncooperativeness and dissembling by Miller to the Times and a lack of reasonable oversight of Miller's work by the Times, as summarized for example in the Washington Post [13]. This included several predictions and calls for Miller to be fired, including by Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University (and a former New York Times reporter); Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University; and Editor and Publisher columnist Greg Mitchell. Mitchell said Miller was guilty of "crimes against journalism" and "did far more damage to her newspaper than did Jayson Blair, and that's not even counting her WMD reporting, which hurt and embarrassed the paper in other ways."

Source.

Who has more credibility on this issue, you or they?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
Your man Pelletiere says that "Iraq and Saddam was not known to have these nerve and blood agents", but we know full well that after his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War, that he did have stockpiles on VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Napalm when the UN weapons inspector tagged and bagged the stuff.

Are you in a fog or lying? You misquoted him. What he said was, "The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time." He never said they didn't have nerve agents. If you don't believe me, read it again.

Also, VX and Sarin are nerve agents. Mustard gas is a blister agent. Napalm isn't considered to be a chemical weapon agent at all. Did the UN weapons inspectors ever recover Cyanogen chloride or Hydrogen cyanide (blood agents) from Iraqi stockpiles after the first Gulf War? If so, please show me the info.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
We have videos as evidence that he used it. So he's either in a fog or he's lying about his assertions. The NYT can use some outdated dossier as a source, doesn't mean it's fact, nor does it prove your point though. Nuff said? Great.

That the Iraqi military used chemical weapons in Halabja or elsewhere is not in dispute; Pelletier's assertion is that the Kurdish civilians who died there perished from an Iranian chemical attack. This does not make him a conspiracy theorist and it does not make the Times a propaganda machine, unless you want to call every news source everywhere (BBC, Reuters, Fox, CNN, NPR, Christian Science Monitor) one as well, because that would only be fair.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7429 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 1933 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 19):

Honestly Jeff, I really could care less. So I misquoted him, big deal. This is so not-important to me. The fact that NYT published this guy's account on his guesses and nobody else ran with it, except some internet news site. Nobody else would touch it, and that is what is most important. But just keep believing these conspiracies, Saddam's justice is coming, and the Iranians day will come.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
If I actually gave a crap, I could pick up a copy of the NYT, and point out the stories in the front page section.

So let me get this straight, you can jump to such broad conclusions without actually READING the paper itself, you just "know" it to be true?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
Again, being anti-Bush is one thing. I'm anti-Bush. Being blindingly so, like you are, tells me you don't think, you just react. Sorry, but that's how I see it here.

I'm as anti-dnc as I am anti-Bush, but the Republicans always give much better fodder. The only person who is blind is a person like you who refuses to admit this story has a chance of being true and would rather just claim conspiracy theory and go back to your bubble


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7429 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 1913 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B744F (Reply 21):
So let me get this straight, you can jump to such broad conclusions without actually READING the paper itself, you just "know" it to be true?

Did I ever say I never read the NYT? I used to be a subscriber to the Sunday Edition of the Times, but after 3 years of noticing the same stories being rehashed over and over again, I cancelled it in 2004. What do you want? My credit card statements?



Made from jets!
User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

No, I don't really care. Unfortunately, when you see something that you disagree with, you automatically label it liberal

User currently offlineJeffSFO From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 20):
So I misquoted him, big deal.

So much for accuracy and integrity.  Yeah sure

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 20):
The fact that NYT published this guy's account on his guesses and nobody else ran with it, except some internet news site. Nobody else would touch it, and that is what is most important.

This was not a syndicated press piece, it was an OP-ED piece submitted to the Times for publishing--that's why no one else carried it. You can't even get your facts straight.

Just because this is a matter of historical debate and you don't agree with the guy doesn't make it a conspiracy theory.


25 Marco : Just another conspiracy theorist: Yes everyone in the world is a conspiracy theorist except for Bush and Co. How about you acknowledge the fact that t
26 Jetjack74 : Learn how to read Jeff
27 Post contains images JeffSFO : So you counted all op-ed pieces from the Times ever written about the Iraq War? Show me a breakdown of them and then I'll take you seriously. Also, b
28 Jetjack74 : Bush didn't go in to Baghdad because he never would've the votes in congress, the Senate or the UN Security Counsel. Learn your history.The rest of y
29 Post contains links and images JeffSFO : From "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War" by Rick Atkinson, published in 1993: As the triumph of the air campaign against the Iraq bec
30 B744F : lib·er·al Audio pronunciation of "liberal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl) adj. 1. 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did The USA Invade Iraq And Was It Worth It posted Mon Mar 6 2006 23:30:34 by Highpeaklad
It Was The Summer Of 1976 A True Story posted Thu Mar 23 2006 17:53:35 by Dougloid
Maybe It Was Iraq Responsible For 9/11 posted Fri Nov 16 2001 06:18:13 by Wardialer
Will The New WTC Be As Tall As It Was? Or Taller? posted Sat Sep 15 2001 05:11:30 by United Airline
Who Actually Believes It Was Bin Laden? posted Wed Sep 12 2001 17:51:46 by Ikarus
Remember The UK Guys Who Caused The Liquids Ban? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 19:00:24 by Clickhappy
Who Let The Minks Out? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 06:34:14 by Zone1
Who Killed Jap? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 22:22:59 by Rammstein
Who Makes The Best Printer? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 00:11:37 by Dragon-wings
So Who Are The Ones Who Are Queer? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 00:10:05 by Braybuddy