Usama Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11 attacks

[Oleg Bach]

first off, that is my opinion. In my opinion troothers are idiots. Whether you are smert enough to understand Vietnam is highly debatable given that your a chock full of nuts regarding Afghanistan...

Secondly

There was nothing illegal about it. If you can find an internatioanl court ruling go ahead....but the fact is troothers and other tinfoil hat types trot out phrases like illegal and haven't a clue what they mean and carry no weight other than they, the tin foil hat troothers in their opinion, don't like it therefore, must be illegal.

"International court hearing" eh...? Do you ever wonder who tells the judge how to rule...Just like the Judge that brought down the ruling to disperse the union blocking the General Motors office...wonder if he gets a call and some one says..."Hey Charely ...make it look legit and say the GM are bad boys and then make sure that Terry and the boys can get back in the office..they are losing a bundle" As you see in this policy driven world I have no respect for judges because they do not judge between right or wrong...it's all policy and self interest of a select few in control.

[DogOnPorch]

Or how about telling us how this situation is any different from how were were lied to in Vietnam.

How were we lied to in Viet-nam? The part about the commies taking the place over? Looks like that was a stunning success.

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

Follow me if I advance! Kill me if I retreat! Revenge me if I die!

---Ngo Dinh Diem

[GostHacked]

Arguing with a troothar reminds me so much of playing with a cat and a piece of string.

I usually get bored after the same time period too - about 5 minutes...

But yet you felt the need to post this useless bit.

BC

No, I thought you said we were in Iraq because of 9/11. Make up your mind!

WMDs, Saddam, Al-queda. Someone in the BUSH administration better make up their minds and tell us straight up what the deal is. And since they have not, nor will they ever, their minds are made up to deceive the general population into supporting the war for the totaly wrong reasons.

Again you will work Canada into it somehow, and sure I will agree with you. And you will always say it is the way it has always been.

[DogOnPorch]

WMDs, Saddam, Al-queda. Someone in the BUSH administration better make up their minds and tell us straight up what the deal is. And since they have not, nor will they ever, their minds are made up to deceive the general population into supporting the war for the totaly wrong reasons.

This from a poster who thinks smallpox was cured by the Russian military.

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

Warning: the Internet may contain traces of nuts!

[Michael Hardner]

But yet you felt the need to post this useless bit.

Yes, Ghost... the five minutes hadn't expired yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

WMDs, Saddam, Al-queda. Someone in the BUSH administration better make up their minds and tell us straight up what the deal is. And since they have not, nor will they ever, their minds are made up to deceive the general population into supporting the war for the totaly wrong reasons.

Does not matter in the least...(reprise) > American foreign policy for Iraq has been consistent since 1991.....REGIME CHANGE...ding dong...Saddam is dead.

The "general population" re-elected President Bush in 2004....any questions?

Edited June 17, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

But yet you felt the need to post this useless bit.

I agree.

Michael Hardner, apologise immediately to the feline population....they are in no way as inane, idiotic and repugnant as troothers...

[obsidian]

How were we lied to in Viet-nam? The part about the commies taking the place over? Looks like that was a stunning success.

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

Follow me if I advance! Kill me if I retreat! Revenge me if I die!

---Ngo Dinh Diem

No, the part about the US gov't falsifying documents to coerce the public into a somewhat willing war (overwhelmingly towards the end the public pushed for withdrawl much like the Iraq situation). We were told that the USS Maddox & Turner Joy attacked by the Viet Cong which became the cassus belli for the war. The NSA later released documents that showed that there was, in fact, no attack on the 2nd date. Much like the cassus belli for Afghanistan, which presented to the public was to persecute Bin Laden and his cohorts. And we now know they do not even have enough evidence to prove he comitted 9/11, says the FBI.

And sorry dancer, I guess it wasn't illegal. It ignored Afghanistan and Sudans sovereignty and territorial integrity. But because an accused terrorist attacked an US embassy I guess they have no rights any more. Did Afghanistan fund and orchestrate the attacks? Or was it Sudan? Or was it an individual representing a small clique...not the entire country.

[DogOnPorch]

No, the part about the US gov't falsifying documents to coerce the public into a somewhat willing war (overwhelmingly towards the end the public pushed for withdrawl much like the Iraq situation). We were told that the USS Maddox & Turner Joy attacked by the Viet Cong which became the cassus belli for the war. The NSA later released documents that showed that there was, in fact, no attack on the 2nd date. Much like the cassus belli for Afghanistan, which presented to the public was to persecute Bin Laden and his cohorts. And we now know they do not even have enough evidence to prove he comitted 9/11, says the FBI.

And sorry dancer, I guess it wasn't illegal. It ignored Afghanistan and Sudans sovereignty and territorial integrity. But because an accused terrorist attacked an US embassy I guess they have no rights any more. Did Afghanistan fund and orchestrate the attacks? Or was it Sudan? Or was it an individual representing a small clique...not the entire country.

Ahhhhh...yes. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Nobody really knows exactly what happened there. Even conspiracy theorists. You are aware that the Viet-nam War started years before that...right? The roots of American involvement in Indochina go back to WW2.

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

For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.

---LBJ

[M.Dancer]

Ahhhhh...yes. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Nobody really knows exactly what happened there. Even conspiracy theorists. You are aware that the Viet-nam War started years before that...right? The roots of American involvement in Indochina go back to WW2.

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

For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.

---LBJ

....if you wanted to be nit picky, the roots of the indo chinese conflict go back the the Sun King....

[M.Dancer]

And sorry dancer, I guess it wasn't illegal. It ignored Afghanistan and Sudans sovereignty and territorial integrity. But because an accused terrorist attacked an US embassy I guess they have no rights any more. Did Afghanistan fund and orchestrate the attacks? Or was it Sudan? Or was it an individual representing a small clique...not the entire country.

That's right....it's is just in your troother opinion that it was illegal. No worries..this ain't the first time a troother found out they didn't know what they were talking about. Although your first clue might have been why no court took up the case....might be because every nation has the right to defend itself and to strike back...even if it meas, and it always means ....goiong into someone else's sovereign terrirtory.

Really, are troothers that addled and confused? how do you attack someone without going into another country, invite the vermin here?

[obsidian]

Ahhhhh...yes. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Nobody really knows exactly what happened there. Even conspiracy theorists. You are aware that the Viet-nam War started years before that...right? The roots of American involvement in Indochina go back to WW2.

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

For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.

---LBJ

US involvement prior was minimal and mainly consisted of advisors (less than 1000 soldiers), after the gulf of tonkin incident they were fully comitted with 485,000 troops. Diem was against American intervention then he was thrown out in a coup then assasinated. America was behind the coup.

[bush_cheney2004]

US involvement prior was minimal and mainly consisted of advisors (less than 1000 soldiers), after the gulf of tonkin incident they were fully comitted with 485,000 troops. Diem was against American intervention then he was thrown out in a coup then assasinated. America was behind the coup.

American "involvement" in Vietnam dates back to at least President Eisenhower, with force levels rising to about 16,000 by 1961 under President Kennedy. It was not "minimal".

[obsidian]

and it was only a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity because Afghanistan & Sudan were not informed prior to the attacks. You can barely say Bin Laden represents all of Sudan & Afghanistan. With justification from the embassy attacks they were authorized to retaliate against Bin Laden. However, the intel on the Sudanese pharmacutical plant was shotty at best and could of led to the death of thousands from unavailable medication. Afghanistan insisted they did not support Bin Laden and were in negotiations with the US. Russia criticized the US for not following through with the negotiations until the end before attacking.

[M.Dancer]

US involvement prior was minimal and mainly consisted of advisors (less than 1000 soldiers), after the gulf of tonkin incident they were fully comitted with 485,000 troops. Diem was against American intervention then he was thrown out in a coup then assasinated. America was behind the coup.

After? That's such a definte time frame....I could just as accurately say after Tonkin, the North Vietnamese occupied Saigon....

Now we know facts a troothers are like oil and vinegar...lets see...The Osidean says prior (another highly accurate word) to Tonkin, the troop levels were less than 1000

Pre Gulf of Tonkin -1962 ----11,300 US troops

Gulf of Tonkin incident -1964 --23,000

Post Gulf---1965---184,000

FINALLY 1967 ---485600 ----3 years after the tonkin incident

1968---536,100

Not coincidently, the South Vietnamese Armed Forces reacting to the sae threat as why the US is increasing troops levels ups their forces from 240,000 in 63 to 514,000 in 64.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Russia criticized the US for not following through with the negotiations until the end before attacking.

Russia was in no position to criticize anybody....the ruble had just collapsed!

[DogOnPorch]

The first US soldier in Viet-nam/Indochina was around 1944 when OSS men paradropped into the region to make contact with the then pro-US Ho Chi Mihn. Contact was made and Ho's men took up the war vs the Japanese with new US weapons and equipment. Things looked rosy for the post war Viet-nam and Uncle Ho re: the USA until the McCarthy Era when he was discarded out-of-hand as a communist. This drove him into the arms of the Red Chinese who helped him with his post war efforts to remove the French. The French had been allowed back in to Indochina completely overturning Ho's efforts at establishing Viet-nam proper.

US involvement prior was minimal and mainly consisted of advisors (less than 1000 soldiers), after the gulf of tonkin incident they were fully comitted with 485,000 troops. Diem was against American intervention then he was thrown out in a coup then assasinated. America was behind the coup.

Diem (a Catholic) wasn't 'couped' because of American involvement...or lack there-of. He and his family were detested by the South Vietnamese (ARVN) officer corp and the Buddhist monks. He ruled like a despot and his brother and sister-in-law were corupt and had just as much power as Diem did. Ambassador Lodge did what he could to convince Diem to act a bit more like a western leader...but to no avail. Kapow!! Dead...1963. Same with his brother...Madame Nhu escaped assassination as she was on an extended Beverly Hills shopping spree at the time.

Those detached from that time might tend to overlook that it was the NVA (or PANV as it was known then) and the VC (aka NLF) who threw the first punches in this part of the War in Indochina after the partition in 1954.

US involvement in the coup was more along the lines of: 'we know something is up...but we aren't going to tell Diem if you young Turks do a better job at running the country than he and his rotten family did.'

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

I would clap hands at seeing another monk barbecue show, for one can not be responsible for the madness of others.

---Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu

Edited June 18, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[obsidian]

Hmm I guess Robert McNamara, the Secratary of Defense for the majority of the war, was confused when he said,

"I believe the U.S. should not have given support to a coup. I think, in hindsight, most would agree with that conclusion. It was not a universal conclusion at the time, by any means."

And they kept on trying it over and over again to no avail, "This was one reason that those who opposed the coup among Kennedy's advisers, one reason they opposed it. They couldn't get any indication of who was likely to follow, or whether the regime would be stable. And of course, what ultimately happened was, the regimes that followed Diem were not stable. It was like a revolving door: prime ministers were going in and out every few months or few weeks"

"Was Congress misled regarding the Tonkin Gulf resolution? Did they misunderstand the resolution? My answer, and it's important, is: yes and no."

", "Does this resolution mean the President will have the authority to take the nation to war in Southeast Asia?" And Senator Fulbright said, "Yes." So there was no misunderstanding on that. But the Senate had been led to believe the president would not use that authority without seeking further counsel from the Senate; [and] he didn't [seek further counsel]. And in that sense, I think they were misled. ... "

"In any event, it was a very serious error on the part of the Johnson Administration. We did not fully debate the actions that led to the introduction of 500,000 troops, either with Congress or with the public. And that's one of the major lessons: no president should ever take this nation to war without full public debate in the Congress and/or in the public. "

I get it, they had more than 1000 soldiers prior to the gulf of tonkin incident, sorry for not double sourcing that fact. However, do you not think that and increase from 11,000 to over 500,000 is significant? It wasn't because the public or congress pushed for a ~4500% increase in troops, it was because of the gulf of tonkin incident. The gulf of tonkin resolution allowed the President to go to war, aforementioned the senate believed that they would be consulted before further action, they weren't.

"How to avoid these conflicts is something the human race has to learn. This century will go down as the bloodiest century in all of human history. We'll have lost 160 million people, killed by conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century? I don't think so. If we want to avoid it, we have to learn from our mistakes in this century. Vietnam was one of those."

Just like Iraq and Afghanistan...we're on a great start ~2/160th of the way there.

All the quotes are from Robert McNamara, Episode 11, Cold War, CNN.

BC by your logic than the US is in no position to criticize any one, your USD and economy are doing amazing eh? (well I guess it's kinda global now)

Edited June 18, 2008 by obsidian

[bush_cheney2004]

BC by your logic than the US is in no position to criticize any one, your USD and economy are doing amazing eh? (well I guess it's kinda global now)

No, by my logic, anybody can criticize whomever they please, but it doesn't mean a damn thing compared to power and the will to use it. Talk is cheap. See, that's the part a lot of people don't understand....not only do the Americans possess the means, more importantly, they possess the will.

I think former MP Carolyn Parrish understands this.

[DogOnPorch]

The US knew that something was up. ARVN officers had been sniffing out Lodge's stance on a change in government for weeks prior to the coup. That pretty much sums up their involvement. They didn't say a thing to Diem other than that he should try and address the looming problems before disaster set in. They could have stopped it by informing him...the offending officers would have no doubt been arrested...or whacked. Coups in South Viet-nam were as common as underware changes for most people. Ky was my favorite...ended up running a liquor store in California after the war. It would be wrong to assume the US was behind the coups...just aware of some of them before they happened. As you might imagine, changing leaders often led to more confusion rather than less...and that isn't what the US was after in Viet-nam. They just had to deal with a very ambitious ARVN officer corp who all thought they were General MacArthur...there's even a famous picture of several of the coup leaders with corn-cob pipes, dark sunglasses and lots of gold braid. They weren't dressing up...

Robert McNamara is actually an if-y reliable source as he had a huge crisis in confidence which led to his resignation. It pretty much ended his political life. At first, McNamara was very much in favor of the war...then after his policies seemed to fall flat, he began to suggest drawing back. But too much was at stake by then. It is up in the air if LBJ asked him to leave or if McNamara went on his own. Either way, the World Bank's comfy chairs were waiting for him.

I do realize that nothing I say will change those minds that are already infected with conspiracy theories. I suggest you read the "10,000 Day War" by Michael Maclear for a Canadian eye view of the war. Stanley Karnow's "Viet-nam: A History" is also an excellent account of the events of the time. He is a US reporter who covered the war from 1959 to 1974.

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

The fact that the talk may be boring or turgid or uninspiring should not cause us to forget the fact that it is preferable to war.

---Henry Cabot Lodge Jr

[segnosaur]

The question is, whether Bush administration's real goal was to see justice done on the perpetraitors of 9/11, or start implementation of its global "democracy" project, on the pretext provided by 9/11? Unleashing wars in Afghanistan, and, moreover, in Iraq, which was in no proven way related to 9/11, strongly points to #2.

And why exactly do both wars have to have the same cause/reasoning behind it?

Given the fact that 9/11 was caused by terrorists who were residing in Afghanistan, I'm pretty sure that getting justice was the key point in that invasion.

If you want to argue that perhaps the Iraq invasion had different motivations, I might even have some agreement with you. (In fact, prior to the war the Bush administration itself indicated that its actions were partly due to a desire to bring in democracy and freedom to Iraq.) But then, Iraq wasn't the issue being brought up in the early posts... Bin Laden and Afghanistan was.

If all they were looking for was justice on Bin Laden and cohorts, they could have taken neutral country as the first step; then maybe have him extradited;

First of all, you do realize that the offer to turn bin Laden over to a 'neutral country' only started after the U.S. began its military action? The Taliban completely refused prior to that.

Secondly, do you honestly believe that the Taliban would have been willing to send him to a "neutral" 3rd country that would have had anything resembling a western-style Judicial process? How do you even define neutrality in this case? Remember, the initial offer was to have bin Laden tried in an islamic court... which isn't exactly what we would recognize as a modern justice system.

And why exactly should the U.S. bother with this neutral 3rd country/extradition? Bin Laden's crimes were against the U.S. The U.S. should be the one who handles its justice. Do you think that if someone commits murder in Canada, that we should hold his trial in Mongolia?

on U.S. demands to turn over bin Laden and other terrorists, and allow access to terrorist camps

Which may certainly take more than a few weeks given to them by US administration (compare with how long it's taking them to achieve the same goal).

Uhhh... no.

Afghanistan didn't even make an attempt to comply with the U.S. Had they been serious, they would have at least tried to get bin Laden themselves. And they could have offered the U.S. access to the training camps themselves. They did not.

In any case, to my knowledge, nobody has yet proven that Taleban were either directly involved in 9/11

Quite possible that the Taliban didn't know about it. But, its irrelevant. Even if they didn't know about al Qaeda's plans until after it happened, the fact that they refused to act until under the threat of military action indicates at least a compliance.

... or refused to bring its perpetrators to justice.

Justice involves having him face the laws of the country that he attacked, not some islamic court in some country that would just as likely give him a pat on the back.

So you're claiming that questions of morality are a valid ground for a war? Because our morals are different (superior to theirs, in our view), we are entitled to invade them, and install our understanding of "moral" by force?

Hey, I admit, I do have an opinion that my "morals" are superior to those of the Taliban. I believe in basic human rights (the right to life, to free speech, in basic equality of the genders). Those are obviously things that the Taliban did not believe in, and are worth fighting for/defending.

(I could point out that most of the world technically feels the same way, since the U.N. has adopted certain basic human rights principles; however, many of its members don't bother practicing what they preach.)

Of course, if you want to argue that no set of morals is 'superior' to another, then the issue becomes irrelevant, since engaging in war cannot be considered an immoral act.

So, if someone actually believes that enforcing certain 'morals' isn't a valid basis for war, then how do you feel about the Holocaust? What about the slaughter in Rwanda? Are they OK because they were within the moral confines of the countries involved?

[segnosaur]

Anyone who believes we would have attacked Afghanistan if 9-11 hadn't occurred must be living on another planet from the one I'm living on.

Ummmm... straw man.

Nobody here is claiming that the U.S. would have invaded Afghanistan if it weren't for 9/11. What we are doing is pointing out the failure of the arguments that somehow getting bin Laden was the only purpose of American involvement there. Its not.

US tells Taliban to give up Bin Laden or face attack

Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days.

First of all, keep in mind that this article (while fairly accurate) is in no way comprehensive. True, they do focus on Bin Laden, but that does not mean that getting bin Laden was the only goal of the U.S.

Secondly, I suggest you read to the end of the article, where its stated: The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, expressed his conviction that Bin Laden was behind it: "I have no doubt that he and his organisation played a significant role in this....

Even if the Taliban was to hand him over, that is unlikely to prevent military action. The best the Taliban could hope for is the US focusing solely on Bin Laden's bases

So, even the author of the article seems to understand that getting bin Laden was not the only goal.

[segnosaur]

Yet they said they would invade if bin Laden wasn't handed over. What do you think the deal was? 'Hand over bin Laden but we're going to attack you anyway?' I'm sure the Taliban would have jumped on that.

Yet they said they would invade if bin Laden wasn't handed over. What do you think the deal was? 'Hand over bin Laden but we're going to attack you anyway?' I'm sure the Taliban would have jumped on that.

Once again.... even though news sources and press releases singled out bin Laden, the other requirements (shutting down terrorist base) was a requirement right from the beginning. You seem to forget that the information you get has been filtered through a news source.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5 : Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

That was after the bombing started. I'm talking about prior to the bombing.

Prior to the bombing, Bush said: President Bush demanded Thursday night that the Taliban surrender all leaders of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization and close al-Qaeda's bases in the country. (From: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf...afghan.taliban/ )

This was in mid-September, weeks before any bombing started. So the U.S. was always interested in more than just bin Laden.

So, your claim that it was 'just about bin Laden' is false.

I didn't say it was "just" about bin Laden.

Actually, you said (on June 16, at 2:38 pm), "there would be no war if the Taliban turned over bin Laden to the U.S....Al Qaeda is not what's at issue here, though. Bin Laden is. It was all about bin Laden.".

I said it was all we heard about.

Who's this "we"? After all, I had heard that they wanted more than just bin Laden. The fact that you only knew about the one individual seems to be more of a failure in your ability to read and understand the news.

The fact is that there were multiple news reports, statements, press releases, etc. all of which indicated that the U.S. wanted more than just bin Laden.

Once again, the fact that they haven't bothered to lay charges does not mean that they would not have enough evidence to actually convict him if and when they actually bring him into court.

That makes no sense at all. It's more than a stretch to say that he wasn't charged with 9-11 because it's unneccessary. After all, he's already been charged with lesser acts, so why charge him with the attack we went to war over?

Ummm... you do know that the previous crimes that bin Laden was charged for involved terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of people? More than enough to have him as a very wanted man.

The fact is, the FBI said there was no hard evidence to charge him with.

You seem to have this bizarre fixation on the term 'hard evidence'. Would you care to define what you consider to be 'hard evidence'? Care to explain why the evidence that we do have (videotaped confessions, his position as head of al Qaeda, etc.) isn't significant?

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381302,00.html

NEW YORK — Pakistan's top diplomat said Saturday there are no U.S. or other foreign military personnel on the hunt for Usama bin Laden in his nation, and none will be allowed in to search for the Al Qaeda leader.

And the US is going to abide by this? That seems a whole lot of messed up. Pakistan is an ally, but is harboring the same terrorists Pakistan is supposed to help fight.

Something not right here at all.

[obsidian]

"Nobody here is claiming that the U.S. would have invaded Afghanistan if it weren't for 9/11. What we are doing is pointing out the failure of the arguments that somehow getting bin Laden was the only purpose of American involvement there. Its not."

ok simple simple

Usama bin Laden=[scape]goat for 9/11

Afghanistan= Usama bin Laden's lair ie. "SECRET CAVES DUM DUM DUM DUMMMMM[V]"

9/11=Al Quaeda

Al Quaeda=(supposedly) Usama bin Laden

ok so so simple

usama+al quaeda=9/11 attacks

9/11 attacks= public response to attacks and support for retribution against those responsible("Bin Laden's" Al quaeda")

Bin Ladens Cave [DUM DUM DUM DUMMMM{5}] = Is in Afghanistan

Afghanistan=TARGET ((Bomb, bomb, bombed, next bombed is iran? Revision of McCains HILLARIOUS SONG, should now also incorporate something along the lines of smokkkkkkkkke tabakkkkkkkkko, {ur gonna get DU n Fallout neways live it up in flavour province} in his next release))

Target=bombed=war in aghanistan=operation enduring freedom=nothing accomplished but perpetual war(AND I THOUGHT THAT BROKE THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!)

Without Bin Laden the occupation could not have occured. It is as plain and simple as that. If there were other reasons for the occupation as you so kindly told us (WHAT A SHOCKER! REALLY? ULTERIOR MOTIVES, NEVER KNOWN THAT BEFORE) they were not published as you also mentioned (ONCE AGAIN WHAT A SOCCER!). That is the inherent problem. It wasn't just the news, it was also the presidents speeches, as well as the super high-tech multi-million extremely-extravagant Power Point presentation that impressed and coerced all(lol). So the public was misled by the gov't and media, but they cant be held responsible because the public had access to the information? Just not in accessible forms such as the newspaper or cable news or presidential addresses which how many Amerikans rely upon? Say 290 million +/- 8 mil?

No bin laden=no 9/11 (supposedly}

no 9/11=no fear

no fear=no operation enduring *enslavement* with new coo alliteration

9/11 mobilized America to build its empire for this century

Bin Laden Mobilized 9/11

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

the CIA Mobilized Bin Laden as an intelligence asset long ago*

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

*STRIKE RECOLECTION OF TEXT FROM YOUR MEMORY DOUBLE THINK IS BAD, BE HAPPY, BE IGNORANT

Edited July 21, 2008 by obsidian