News & Analysis
Western Wars Are Preplanned?
Washington and the Kyrgyz future – Securing the Pivot ... In this fourth and final part, F. William Engdhal (left) explains why the stakes for Washington in the Kyrgyzstan events are of vital geopolitical importance. Central Asia is key for Washington's strategy of global dominance, hinging on the militarization of the entire region. To this end, time-tested tactics of Low Intensity Warfare are generating the pretext for NATO's permanent expansion under the guise of the 'war on terror', with opium gainfully fueling the operations. In Central Asia, as Engdhal suggests, the survival of the U.S. empire hangs in the balance. – VoltaireNet / F. William Engdahl
Dominant Social Theme: The West is always in control of its wars.
Free-Market Analysis: Please don't write to us about VoltaireNet. We understand what it is and its controversial history. We are citing an article from it only because F. William Engdahl, whom we both admire and dislike (idea-wise, not personally) has written an extraordinary series of articles about the Anglo-American axis, of which this fourth installment, published in early June is perhaps the most impressive. The work is also a kind of power-elite meme and that is the reason we are analyzing it today. First a word about Engdahl, courtesy of Wikipedia, as follows:
His first book was called "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", and discusses the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran, which was meant to manipulate oil prices and to stop Soviet expansion ... Engdahl stated in 2007 that he had come to believe that petroleum is not produced from remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions (a theory supported by the majority of western petroleum geologists and engineers). Instead he now believes in the hypothesis that petroleum is produced underground by carbon, by conditions and forces deeper down in the Earth's core.
Engdahl calls himself an "ex peak oil believer", stating that peak oil is actually a political phenomenon. Engdahl argued that the Earth is cooling, not warming. He claims that global warming, like peak oil, is merely a "scare" and an attempt "by powerful vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice that they remain in control of the events of this planet".
We first heard of Engdahl when he wrote his great book "A Century of War" – one we remember disagreeing with at the time because we already believed that there was plenty of oil in the world and that wars about oil were actually about something else. How gratifying it is to see that Engdahl has changed his mind.
Likewise, we politely disagree with at least some of his political analysis as regards Afghanistan and the Middle East. What do we disagree with? Let us first summarize the analysis as Engdahl and others present it. The idea is that of a "long war" designed to destabilize the Middle East and eventually Russia and even China. To do this, the Anglo-American axis is cleverly applying techniques developed over the past 100 years by the British and subsequently refined by both the British and Americans.
The idea is to create and fund an insurgency that can be confronted in a series of low-intensity battles that continue without end, gradually spreading instability and confrontation throughout a given region. This was accomplished, the hypothesis goes, in the late 20th century through CIA recruitment of Al Qaeda and the subsequent development of the Taliban.
Even before 9/11, the US (and Britain presumably) was apparently planning to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 was the putative trigger. When the fighting began, there was a ready-made (and CIA funded) enemy available to provide the low-intensity warfare that was necessary to generate the ongoing destabilization that the West seeks. Eventually, the entire region is to be embroiled in various ethnic and tribal battles and thus destabilized and ripe for a resetting of the culture. The resetting of the culture is created by training new para-military and police forces in service of a new government that has a Western perspective.
What is it that we disagree here? We are on record as pointing out that while strategies such as the ones delineated above have been carried out by the CIA, Pentagon, etc., these elements of the Anglo-American braintrust are mechanical. The power elite operates far above these levels, in our opinion, and such mechanisms are not of the greatest import.
What is important at the highest level is not the generation of opium dollars or even the corralling of oil reserves (there being plenty of oil around the world). No, the end result of all this is meant to be the Westernization of Islam so as to extend Anglo-American hegemony to an additional 1.5 billion people.
To do this, the Anglo-American axis has attacked two of the world's most ancient and vital tribes, the Pashtuns and the Punjabis. The Pashtuns number about 40 million in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Punjabis number about 120 million mainly in Pakistan and in parts of India. The Punjabis and Pashtuns have something of an ancient ethnic rivalry that is being exacerbated by the current violence in the area.
There is another overlay to the above analysis that we have not mentioned in the past but it is increasingly pertinent as an attack on Iran apparently looms. This is the idea, popular in some circles, that the West is involved in creating a new final war (a third-world-war) that will result in the decimation of both Israel and Persia and by extension the decimation of Eastern and Western cultures, laying the groundwork for a new world government. Such hypotheses have an elaborate overlay of mysticism and involve Freemasonry, an active Illuminati, etc.
As should be clear by now, we remain unconvinced that the Afghan war in particular is merely a CIA-initiated "low-intensity war." There are certainly elements of this strategy at work in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well. But in fact the British fought the Pashtuns a century ago without significant success. And the Punjab identity is military as well.
While the war may have begun as part of a larger destabilization effort, the results have not been going according to plan. This is no surprise as we do not believe they went according to plan in Viet Nam either. From the highest vantage, the war going on now in the Middle East and Afghanstian is intended to subdue once and for all those entities that remain stubbornly unintegrated into the Western system of finance and governance. There are other such areas of course, in Africa especially, but it is the Pashtuns (and perhaps the Punjabis) who present the most difficulties.
From this perspective we can see that the war being fought today in Afghansitan (and increasingly in Pakistan) is a critical one for the West not because Afghanistan is at the center of amorphous trade routes but because Afghanistan is the epicenter of unameliorated tribal entities. Our disagreement with Enghals and others stems from this perspective. We do not think the West merely wants merely to create endless, destabilizing chaos with its wars: It wants to win them as well. And right now such a victory is questionable.
To maintain that these wars – and the war in Afghanistan especially – are merely a CIA and Pentagon two-sided action is cynical. Beyond this it is chauvinistic. Is the idea then that the Pashtuns and Punjabis are mere pawns or puppets of the Anglo-American axis? No, those fighting the West are strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up. The Taliban come and go in the night and the Pashtun elders maintain there is nothing to be done about it. The Punjabis protect the Taliban and are not likely to surrender anymore than the Pashtuns will.
Conclusion: These are ancient tribes. The war is in earnest. To us the meme that the "West controls all" is another promotion. No one is ever fully in charge of war – certainly not these wars in these places at these times. And these are increasingly dangerous times.
Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback
 |
Posted by Joe Nunya on 02/25/11 09:34 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ah, you are puzzled. Does it also puzzle you that Wall Street interests funded the communist revolution and Hitler's ascent to power. So many mysteries in the world! Try not to think about them or you will get a headache!
|
Posted by Will Wohler on 08/14/10 07:03 AM
Revisiting the thought about stewardship: I concur 100% that waste, wanton destruction, and like thoughtlessness are abominable and intolerable. BUT " i don't think "using up" currently-available 'resources' is, or even should be objectionable to future generations.
It's fairly clear by now that human ingenuity " which in itself is THE Unlimited, Renewable 'resource', no? " will develop alternatives for all 'resource depletions' which we might "burden" future generations with.
Further, and MOST importantly: to the extent we might forgo use of lower-cost existing resource stocks, we would necessarily reduce prosperity, and almost certainly some amount of technical progress (such rate of progress being strongly dependent on prosperity levels).
So those future generations would inherit a somewhat less-affluent " AND less technologically-developed world ... to THEIR detriment, no?
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/13/10 12:45 AM
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/13/10 12:44 AM
All your points fully taken and understood, and indeed that was all I wished to communicate to The Zen Billionaire. =:-)
IF we accepted that CO2 and Temp are indeed correlated (causation for the moment is the stumbling block to bringing opposing sides to carry on an intelligent investigation of the matter), then we would have reason to suppose that where CO2 soared, eventually temp would follow.
Why is this datum useful? Because it places on the table, the non wildly unreasonable notion that "temp" may be a problem somewhere down-the-road-ish. If that's the case, you've at least inserted one chink of self-questioning in the armor of the AGW deniers – in that they are alerted, through reasonable empirical deduction, that if in ten years we see some really soaring temperatures, that old bug-bear of 'correlation' is still sitting there, shelved by all of the overly zealous skeptics.
These steps beging to sketch out, the kind of doubt and self-examination and diligence which any lay person who genuinely cares for the future of our species will keep firmly in mind. I am an agnostic, but I do find it telling, that all AGW deniers vehemently fixate on the "causation" and there's such a pile of heated controversy surrounding that, that any plain and easy to see "correlation" is simply ignored as irrelevant.
It's not. We've all got great grandchildren looking up at us, waiting to see if we were good stewards of their future (not that we are anyway). Bottom line – if we do see temp soaring in the next ten years, highly suspect though a "ten year statistical trendline" may be – any sincere and non-hidebound person is going to come back and take a very serious look at the correlation which I suggest is so plainly evident today.
ZB has got his purist engineer's hat on. The data spanning 500,000 years that I've seen, paints these two wobbly trajectories looking suspiciously like they are echoing each other. To stand on purist principles of verifiability of the data is taking the courtroom approach to the evidence – when you are standing on a live entity (the planet) instead, the rules of engagement and concern (to an intelligent and fluidly thinking person anyway) do tend to shift subtly.
I am an agnostic. But this is what I distrust about the AGW deniers – they do protest too much.
|
Posted by Will Wohler on 08/12/10 07:11 AM
Am now greatly enjoying your discussion back & forth " i had become pained when there was (imo, too MUCH) sarcasm & near-ad-hominem activity a litte while back.
May i 1] toss another point into this discussion; and 2] second the idea behind ZB's last paragraph of his Aug 11 1:51PM post?
IF we accepted, at least for this forthcoming argument's sake, the assertion that causation doesn't matter because the two characteristics (temp & atmosph. CO2 concen.) are so tightly correlated ON MULTI-Millenial timescales, we'd still have to consider whether one causes the other " & if so, which is the cause " where we are concerned about MUCH shorter timescales (as we must be).
We can only reasonably worry ourselves with events that may occur in the next few years, decades, or at MOST, one century or so. Within this much shorter timeframe, afaik, there is NO weight, preponderance, or other clear indication that atmosph. CO2 conc. leads temperature " let alone that rising CO2 is CAUSING a (the?) temperature increase.
*** to the extent increased atmosph. CO2 is NOT causing temperature increase, every DIME we spend on "CO2 mitigation" " for mitigation's sake only " is WASTED, no? ***
 |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 08/11/10 01:50 PM
No, they don't, not over the time period you're proposing. CO2 doesn't remain sequestered in water indefinitely. Ice melts and freezes, molecules (and atoms themselves) migrate, etc. Plant mater degrades and changes into different things. The precision of proxy measurements decay rapidly with time and the methods used in the public research to support he theory of AGW don't account for that decay, in fact they rarely if ever even acknowledge it exists. Time covers its tracks. This is known as entropy and studies that attempt to see into the distant past ultimately run into the entropy barrier. Information itself must degrade with time. This is a fundamental limit to our knowledge. We lose resolution, the fine details, over time. Thinking of time as space makes it a bit easier.
"All that's required is the informed understanding that where one goes, the other will eventually follow."
If such an informed understanding were to exist then of course it would be important to know what was following what, or if anything was being followed at all. I'm afraid that establishing causation is in fact required to support the Anthropogenic theory of global warming, which literally means "originating in human activity". Global warming due to other causes is not Anthropogenic, so determining the cause of warming is central to the argument.
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/11/10 04:14 AM
I appreciate your comments, but maybe I did not explain my point sufficiently. I take your point, that it may not be possible to impute even the vaguest trajectory for CO2 and temp with the aid of the early mercury thermometer, but ice core readings and plant material provide evidence of at least basic trendlines in CO2 *and* temp, spanning millions of years, no?
My point was this " when (or if) you can dial a dataset out to the very large view, when you see trends in temp and CO2 even roughly follow each other across hundreds of thousands of years, it becomes somewhat of an academic exercise to dwell on causality. The two are manifestly tracking each other and that's about all one could make as an empirical observation.
So your observations that correlation is not causation are moot, or beside the point. The only objective observation being made is that they are moving in rough tandem " and as you likely know better than I from data sampling, when you observe even the vaguest hints of two datasets tracking each other across really vast spans of data, these are statistically significant correlations. Whether they are causative to each other or not is completely beside the point.
So you have ice core samples, tree core samples, et. al showing rough correlations between these two categories of data, which would be trivial across a thousand, or even five thousand years, but are not trivial at all, when plainly visible across *millions* of years. If you want to get all academic on me, you can insist that other than with the mercury thermometer, we can't claim any such thing, but I believe there is some decent science out there that insists we've got at least rough estimations of temp and CO2 trends spanning a few million years.
So " the dataset sampled becomes huge " the relevance of their roughly tracking each other becomes ever steeper, as it's a function of the size of the data set " and that gives you the awkward task of evading the point, that they are C O R R E L A T I N G. (I know, you dislike caps, right?). You do take the point though. These two data sets are, awkwardly, insistently, persistently correlating across geologic spans of time, or doing a damn good impersonation of that.
What does it spell? It spells, that when one of them spikes up, the task of the AGW denier is really immaterial.
All that's required is the informed understanding that where one goes, the other will eventually follow. What it spells is that with CO2 spiking this century, petroleum production growth flat-lining, and China / India et. al. challenged to build out 500 nuclear plants to replace the conventional petroleum energy which they won't have, they'll most certainly continue using coal in a big way, the CO2 isn't going to come down any time, soon.
And you've got that few million years of awkward "evident correlation, but not causation" between Temp and CO2 staring at you like a dead mackerel with a lingering question.
This is why, I think it behooves even the most elaborately skeptical, to open their minds to the idea that when CO2 soars, as few would argue it isn't doing, an alert mind is at least open to the idea that "usually" the temperature will tag along.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 08/11/10 01:57 AM
I'm not convinced of the correlations between atmospheric CO2 and temperature over that course of time you're discussing, the questions I've asked in that outline are an attempt to explore that question.
Many folks lose track of the fact that we don't have precise measurements of those quantities for all but the most recent times. The mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 and I couldn't say precisely when instrument data became available for atmospheric CO2 measurement but my best guess is it may have been as recent as 1812. Prior to that no measurements were available and so it becomes very difficult to say that there is such a thing as a 20 million year chart of the two variables, or that a correlation exists between them.
But that's secondary to the rebuttal. Correlation does not imply causation; the fact that two variables are correlated tells us nothing of causation. If rising CO2 is correlated with rising temperature, either of the two may be the cause, or neither. It is incorrect to assert that because temperature rises along with CO2, CO2 must be the cause of temperature rise or vice versa. Both might be caused by some other factor that isn't being measured.
A humorous example may be obtained by placing a CO2 measurement device next to a thermometer at the outlet of an automobile exhaust, then taking a series of measurements over a time that included periods when the automobile engine was turned on and off.
I can't really address your concerns over conspiracy theory. My vocation is investigation and in addition to the credentials I outlined in the article you read I have formal training in forensic procedures, crime scene protocols, chain of evidence preservation, evidence search, human remains detection and K9 assisted search.
I regret that you find conversations involving hypotheticals disturbing but I can suggest it may help if you take a lighter view of them and attempt to "roll" with the jarring moments you may encounter when confronted with concepts or views outside your comfort zone.
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/10/10 10:01 PM
=:-) (sigh).
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 8/9/2010 6:05:26 PM
I've posted at my blog links to reliable published research (30 years old, some of it) on microwave weapons and induced heart attacks. None of this is implausible...and I hope someone will look into this, at least to kill the rumors.
No harm done, if it was natural causes.
Apologies, DB, for the controversial material.
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/10/10 09:32 PM
Took a look over at your linked page and I can't fault a single conclusion you make. This sentence was particularly fine:
Theocracy is the marriage of religious authority and the state. Technocracy is the government or control of society by an elite of technical experts. Neither one is good for liberty or the advancement of knowledge. I'll propose that authoritarianism in all of its forms results directly from a real, or at least perceived, lack of knowledge.
Very good comment. As to the business with BP's "scheming murderous CEO, I found that conjecture nested squarely in your above posted comments, hence I was taking very few liberties with "interpretation" to read it as I did. I am allergic to wild theories, regard the vast majority of conspiracy theorising to be the symptom of a weakened mind. That's my bias, and I notice that a great number of the most colorful conspiracies turn out to be unfounded. If people were disposed to take note of the percentage of conspiracist notions which don't pan out, they might indulge in this intoxicating exercise a little more sparingly.
Weeble asked why I sounded "mean". I'm not by temperament " I just get irritated when surrounded by a swarm of posters all leaping with boisterous enthusiasm from one conspiracy to the next. Maybe it's just my new arrival's impression, but it seems to me, to be "all conspiracy, all the time" here, and I am standing on the outside of that syndrome, looking in. It's inescapable in this community " a huge bias towards conspiracy *everything* here at the Daily Bell. Yeesh.
As to the AGW rucksus on global warming. It's very good. You approach it properly, without inflamed sentiments or enthusiasms either for or against, and your carefully parsed skepticism doled out equally to the proponents as to the debunkers, is just exactly right. The point being, the issue whether real or false, is very LARGE in it's implications " so skeptics who have a real conscience and don't wish to make merely rhetorical positions, need to be every bit as careful and questioning of their conclusions as are the proponents.
I have one quite simple observation on it. When you look at 20 million year chart of CO2 and Temp, and then you read around in various communities, everyone is minutely parsing the reliability of the data to know what can be included, or what must be culled out " what's too "grainy" or problematic, to provide a predictive focus " but there's one thing I have not seen summarised anywhere " it's immaterial whether the temp, or the CO2 lead.
They are quite visibly, hugely CORRELATED " if they are correlated so infallibly across evolutionary time, that's the sole datum you need, to draw conclusions of significance. You can't look at a multi-million year chart of CO2 and Temp, and argue that they are not correlated. If they were two financial or economic classes, we'd long since have admitted them to be very tightly correlated " even at a glance you can see that they move tightly together across eons.
Meanwhile, the CO2 spike is undeniable. What's the point? That it's immaterial whether the temp has been shown to lead or follow it " if they are correlated across 50 million years with high reliability, so one or the other must "normalise" to match the laggard, in whatever sharp new direction they take. What does the most intelligent science say, to either corroborate this point, or reject it? I'm well aware, that the normalising could express itself with margins of variability of even a thousand years " but the core point, is that they are quite visibly, correlated.
I'm agnostic on AGW " maybe like you. I'm absolutely not convinced that it's clinched, but I refuse to be convinced that the case is closed, either. If I encounter someone who scoffs at the idea that CO2 and Temp are not visibly tightly correlated across geologic time, I dig my heels in and consider them to be displaying a bias that's making them something less than agnostic. They are, quite simply and visibly, tightly correlated across historic time.
And I don't give a crap about exonerating the BP CEO. I just get irritated in an environment where everyone is acting like they never met a conspiracy theory they didn't instantly fall in love with. There's a lot of that around here. Just read any thread at the Bell, and you'll find a dozen posters all alluding to collusions and conspiracies " that's E V E R Y T H R E A D. The topics range all over the place " if you step back for a second and put your sensible hat on for just a second, you realise that adds up to a heck of a lot of conspiracies! They are sprouting up like mushrooms all over these pages! =:-)
Personally, when I see the air beginning to fly thick with "conspiracy-mushroom-spores" I just back off the whole syndrome. The very multiplicity of it the conspiracy references, indicates that it's manifesting as more of a syndrome, than less a product of observing the world dispassionately. My 0.2 cents.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 08/10/10 04:02 PM
Well, I guess we do the best we can. It's good someone was looking into the problem, and I suppose he (was) entitled to an opinion. I think it's very important to look at these things rationally though and avoid stampeding the crowd, or being run down by it. I try to apply the same cautions to other memes and it is often difficult for me to remain calm and not just pick a side based on my personal opinions on the rhetorical skills of an author. This is made even more troublesome by my self-professed love of good rhetoric.
You asked my position on AGW and the hockey stick earlier. Although I answered briefly that I believe it to be hooey, I am still trying to keep an open mind on that subject as well. For a brief overview of my recent musing on the subject, see:
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Very nicely done - and thanks for the link.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 08/10/10 02:16 PM
"Has anyone wondered, even if it were replenishing, whether it was doing so in 21st century economic time, or in G E O L O G I C time? If it's the latter, all of your speculations don't amount to a darn thing in terms of our ability to increase global production from here anyway. What an empty exercise."
This was the point I was trying to make also when I said that as far as I could tell, the mechanism of genesis wasn't relevant to the Peak Oil theory, what was important was the rate of depletion. The Bell then raised the issue of the accuracy of existing stock estimates. I also mentioned that the biotic theory doesn't preclude replenishment even though so called "fossil fuels" are frequently also incorrectly labeled non-renewable; they're theoretically renewable but as you point out above only in geologic time.
I'm not familiar enough with the abiotic theory to say whether it also includes a re-generative component. What I've understood so far is that it proposes petroleum is produced by chemical synthesis of inorganic carbon and hydrogen under conditions of heat and pressure found in the boundary regions of the Earth's crust between the lithosphere and the asthenosphere. I presume the theory might include regeneration through subsumption of tectonic plates, but I can't say anyone in particular has suggested that.
Either way (biotic or abiotic) the re-generative process isn't interesting in the 21st century time frame. While I can agree with the depletion model proposed by Peak Oil, I can't say I have confidence in the more important estimate of the available stock.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Now that Matt Simmons has passed away, there is a lot of commentary about his Peak Oil analysis. Turns out he apparently made estimates from reading magazine articles - when proprietary numbers were not available to him.
|
Posted by Weeble on 08/10/10 01:20 PM
Where are you plucking these fantasy-laden arguments from? Any liquid buried under ground is **under pressure** All rock and strata under ground are **under pressure**. It's the rock sitting on top of it that provides the pressure Weeble.
Weeble says:
These fantasy-laden statements (they are not arguments yet) come from my mind, and experiences and from others. They become arguments once the derision has been removed.
So water in aquifers is under pressure? Water that drains from the surface, is filtered quite nicely, and you need pumps to lift it back out. Take Carmel California for instance, they sucked so much aquifer out that the ocean has entered almost 1.5 miles inland to replace it. Lots of pressure, eh?
How about mines? Every single mine gets crushed, once drilled or blown out. Lots of cavities in your wording, methinks.
How about volcanoes? The lava or fuego, or agua is squeezed out of the volcano like a zit? Or does it come from the core, where the real pressure is located?
How come you insult people so much? Are you grasping at straws, so tightly that it turns into bio-fuel?
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/10/10 01:17 PM
No disrespect to the intended. This is just what might be termed a "vehement disparity of views" (on one of the most critically important unfolding trends for the early 21st Century). (grins wryly).
The overwhelming majority of editorials at the Daily Bell are very fine, and this is only one singular issue I find myself at diametric odds with you, as to the "actionable intelligence" that's out there either confirming or debunking it.
I like Zenbillionaire find your light and wry touch with the humor to be very special. However, some of us are submitting to you, the above discussed issue shows every promise, and very high likelihood of blooming into a far, far bigger issue than all the fiat money mayhem your community mainly is so much more preoccupied with.
The comment about five years hence was not idle. The best estimations are that the next five years will reveal some extraordinary, truly convulsive fireworks in this unfolding secular-scale story. The take away is this: this will **not** prove out to be just another "meme" " not by anyone's remotest description, in 2015-2017.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 08/10/10 11:16 AM
I was only responding to your remark that you would leave that bit of diligence to me. When you mentioned murder it occurred to my I didn't really know that the men onboard had been killed. I looked up the story and found they hadn't actually been confirmed dead. The London TImes reports:
Click to view link
This is to say that I would not be able to accuse anyone of murder, since no bodies have been found. As I said, I try to check my assumptions, I also check those of others.
|
Posted by Weeble on 08/10/10 06:25 AM
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/10/10 04:21 AM
Seriously " I have a wide open mind. The thing does not remotely add up " sounds rather more like a bad acid trip by someone running a fever " but you say you've done the homework, and that sleuthing these sorts of things is right up your street. So set me straight " am I being taken for a patsy by BP?
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Am I being taken for a patsy by BP? "
1. Why do you have such faith in BP?
2. Zenbillionaire never stated it was a staged event, only alluded its the possibility. Given everything that has gone on in the Gulf, doesn't suspicion, generally, seem warranted?
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 08/10/10 04:02 AM
I've already done the homework Luke.
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/10/10 03:59 AM
|
Posted by Lukester on 08/10/10 03:57 AM
|
|
