Is OBL right?

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
story

Is Osama right?

Osama bin Laden, publicly injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of presidential elections, said in a videotape aired Friday that the United States can avoid another Sept. 11 attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims. In the segment broadcast, the al-Qaida leader refrained from directly
warning of new attacks, although he said "there are still reasons to repeat what happened."

It's a fact that the US and Europe meddles in the ME affairs because of one thing, oil. The people in the Middle East will get rid of their own dictators, when they evolve to the point in which they feel the need to
do so. We have our troops in Saudi Arabia upholding an unpopular and brutal government. We now have troops in Afganistan, and Iraq. The US will have a large military presense in Iraq for another 10 years. And then we have the little Israel/Palestinian conflict.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess
with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

He is right, it is the American public that votes for people like Kerry and Bush. And how do we come to vote for people like this? Of course the RNC and DNC nominate 2 guys, and we, like sheep, just pick one of them.

But not just one of them. What is the phrase we use, "the lessor of two evils?" Isn't this America? Don't WE get to choose who WE want as president? We do, and we give that right away. But we don't start on the presidential level, no, we start at home.

We vote for people we don't know about, everyone from School Board, to Mayors, state councilmen, etc., etc.. Somewhere down the long line of corruption, you'll find the people that help people like GWB and Kerry get nominated. Don't get me wrong, some people are good little Americans and vote well, and
sometimes we get good people in government. It is possible to do this. Unfortunely the RNC isn't run by people like John McCain, and the DNC isn't run by people like [insert cool guy who is a Democrat] (I couldn't think of one). And it will take American voters to get that to happen, not our current leaders, our government can't fix this, only we can. In Iraq and in Aghanistan we are trying to force others to vote, and we doing a horrible job of it ourselves.

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.In what appeared to be
conciliatory language, bin Laden said he wanted to explain why he ordered the suicide airline hijackings that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon so Americans would know how to act to prevent another
attack.

About 10% of Americans took off their tin foil hats tonight, now knowing that Cheney and Bush did not plan 9/11.

To the American people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another Manhattan," he said. "I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security.

Ah, security. You know that feeling when you go to bed at night, in your warm cozy bed, and silence outside your home? Now that's security. Well we like it. And so do others, but some have yet to find out that security is worth the fight for it, just as Americans did over 200 years ago. What is interesting is Iraqi's didn't resist Saddam just ENOUGH to remove him. There wasn't just quite enough support from Iraqi's to get him out of his office, er..uh.., twelve giant palaces. So why the resistence to us? Why were they brave enough to stand up to us? Well, with a little imported Islam from neighboring countries, and the appearance of our soft "rights" of prisoners, we may not have been as intimidating as Saddam. They don't care about getting shot, or hit with a bomb, that's easy death. They just don't want their balls hooked up to something plugged into a wall socket. Maybe that's why we saw the prison abuse by our troops. Got to make them talk somehow, right?

So why are we there again? WMD, oh yeah. have we found those yet?

The plan seems obvious. They say it took 2 years to plan 9/11. It took our gov't about 15 to plan for Iraq. First be friends with Saddam, he was the perfect candidate. Brutal dictator, desire for war, and he had a HUGE amount of good, clean, oil. As homer would say, "hmmmmmmm... oil." So they gave him some weapons, waited until he did something really bad, and then called him on it, setting up an exaggerated global period of hate for him. We make sure that the law says Saddam must disarm of his WMD. Inspectors are there to search, for more than a decade, just to make sure they are all gone. We can't take him out with all of those WMD. Then when the time is right (after 9/11) we take him out, help get someone elected, anyone who fits the bill, including someone willing to sell us oil.

After the video was aired, President Bush said that "Americans will not be intimidated" by bin Laden.

Bush says it like it is, "we will not stop meddling in ME affairs, we can prevent their resistence with force and strong intelligence."

No we can't. You can't stop an idea with bombs and bullets. You can kill someone but you cannot take away a peoples desire to live how they choose. You can try to scare someone, but it's not guaranteed they will fear you. If we continue to allow our government to interfere with other countries, we need to start trying to live like they do in Israel. In fact, if we continue to allow our gov't to meddle in the affiars of other countries, then we are a decade away from missing one of our beautiful cities and about a million of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers.

"Democratic challenger John Kerry criticized Bush for failing to capture bin Laden earlier and said that "I can run a more effective war on terror."

I ask you to notice ONE thing in what Kerry said here. He said "a more effective," not "an effective." In that sense, he MAY be right, but other than that, I say, total BULLSHIT.


Is Osama right?

Well, yes. And no. Blowing up 110 stroy buildings, embassies, etc., and killing 10's of thousands of innocent people is wrong. Period. Where does that get you? More hatred, it adds fuel to the flames. More wars, more undeserved punishment for people all over the world. Look where 9/11 got the Taliban, look where it got Saddam. And the Iraqi people got the worst of it. The country will be unstable for years, maybe decades. Yes, Saddam is done, but they are very fearful of what is next.

OBL is giving the US gov't MORE excuses to be in the ME, just as our residing in the ME is giving OBL MORE excuses to attack us.

It's that simple.

And it's the citizens of the US and also the citizens of other countries that need to help keep the peace, our governments won't do it. We have to. If Iraqi's would have had the courage to oust Saddam, they wouldn't have 100,000 American troops in their backyard. And if Americans would get more involved in their government, those 100,000 troops, our fathers, our sons, our brothers, would be at home right now.


Good grief, I typed way too much here didn't I? Oh well, start the flames.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
i want to know what all the people saying bush/cheney planned the attack have to say.
 

zzzz

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2000
5,498
1
76
Originally posted by: nick1985
i want to know what all the people saying bush/cheney planned the attack have to say.

so you believe OBL?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.
If Kerry does win the left and right are going to make damn sure he holds up to his promise of tracking down the funda-headcase dog he is and put him to justice..
 

zzzz

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2000
5,498
1
76
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: zzzz
Originally posted by: nick1985
i want to know what all the people saying bush/cheney planned the attack have to say.

so you believe OBL?

i think i got my answer

How so? I dont believe that bush planned the attack. I am just asking whether you believe OBL. If he comes out and says "Al Quaida wants Bush to win", would you believe it?
 

LordPhoenix

Golden Member
Jul 1, 2004
1,341
0
0
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.

lol "you" dont got it covered. if it was covered people wouldn't be dying in iraq and osama woulda been dead. how dare you say we got it covered. doubt kerry will do any better than bush. why are dumbasses running for president...? why cant they get real people to run for office.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
He's right that our security is in our own hands. I could give two spits for anything Al keeda has to say about it.


You know, I think about all the sh1t we've put native americans through, and hispanics, and blacks..

and then I watch the end of the the Newshour on PBS, night after night, and while it's heartbreaking that the world is the ugly place it is sometimes, I feel honored to be an American.

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: LordPhoenix
lol "you" dont got it covered. if it was covered people wouldn't be dying in iraq and osama woulda been dead. how dare you say we got it covered. doubt kerry will do any better than bush. why are dumbasses running for president...? why cant they get real people to run for office.

Then get your ass out there how dare you be so complacent and not run for office since you are not a "dumbass"
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.
If Kerry does win the left and right are going to make damn sure he holds up to his promise of tracking down the funda-headcase dog he is and put him to justice..
This is an odd wrinkle in the space-time continuim because I was thinking this exact same thing today. If Kerry does win, he has made promise after promise after promise to go after the terrorists hard-core. He damn well better hold up to those promises.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.
If Kerry does win the left and right are going to make damn sure he holds up to his promise of tracking down the funda-headcase dog he is and put him to justice..
This is an odd wrinkle in the space-time continuim because I was thinking this exact same thing today. If Kerry does win, he has made promise after promise after promise to go after the terrorists hard-core. He damn well better hold up to those promises.


On the other hand, if Bush wins I hope he keeps his promise that we won't be killed by terrorists like we would have been if Kerry got elected.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.
If Kerry does win the left and right are going to make damn sure he holds up to his promise of tracking down the funda-headcase dog he is and put him to justice..
This is an odd wrinkle in the space-time continuim because I was thinking this exact same thing today. If Kerry does win, he has made promise after promise after promise to go after the terrorists hard-core. He damn well better hold up to those promises.


On the other hand, if Bush wins I hope he keeps his promise that we won't be killed by terrorists like we would have been if Kerry got elected.
Don't ruin my wine cooler moment with steeplerot, Tom.

 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Imperial Hubris pretty much echos what Osoma said. They are at war with us due to our policies abroad, specifically to Muslims. They do not just fight for no reason. They were against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan for the same reasons, they didn't turn to the US until we setup camp in their holy land in Saudi Arabia.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.
If Kerry does win the left and right are going to make damn sure he holds up to his promise of tracking down the funda-headcase dog he is and put him to justice..
This is an odd wrinkle in the space-time continuim <snip>
Oh no don't tell me John Titor is here!
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Fvck obl we don't need his murdering self telling us bush is bad news he needs to hide some more and worry about his own ass -we got it covered.
If Kerry does win the left and right are going to make damn sure he holds up to his promise of tracking down the funda-headcase dog he is and put him to justice..
This is an odd wrinkle in the space-time continuim because I was thinking this exact same thing today. If Kerry does win, he has made promise after promise after promise to go after the terrorists hard-core. He damn well better hold up to those promises.

Kerry is a fighter, dirty too, even right calls him a war crimminal. Bad news who ever get elected IMO.

John kerry will make his adoring anti-war groupies look like fools
By Edward Luttwak
(Filed: 24/10/2004)

One of the more amusing spectacles of these less-than- amusing times is the emergence of a kerry fan club among European anti-war enthusiasts. The letter-writing campaign of The Guardian to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, is especially silly, but is only one of many examples.

Of course many people support John kerry for the next president of the United States for a variety of reasons - he is credible when he promises to cut the Federal deficit, for example. But to support him in the hope that he would make American military policy more doveish is absurd. All the evidence is that he will do the exact opposite.

He has declared that he wants to increase the US Army by two divisions, more than the total of Continental Europe's intervention troops. That too is a credible promise, in part because Iraq has exposed an acute shortage of ground forces and an excess of navy and air force personnel. But beyond any specific policy positions, there is kerry, the very combative man.

In the televised debates, when President Bush spoke of "defeating terrorism", kerry invariably spoke of "killing the terrorists". This was not just an electoral pose: the words accurately reflect the character of the man. He is a fighter, a two-fisted brawler. In all his past electoral campaigns, successful or otherwise, he was always the more aggressive candidate, ready to make wild accusations he knew to be false in the hope that some voters would believe even the incredible. At the moment he is telling older voters that Bush has a secret plan to cut their pensions by 45 per cent, and younger voters that Bush has a secret plan to re-introduce compulsory military service.

And kerry was certainly a fighter in Vietnam. Like many other well-born Americans of the time, kerry already opposed the war as contrary to US strategic and economic interests (not as a pacifist) when he volunteered for an extra tour of duty in Vietnam, having already served his compulsory year safely aboard ship.

As all the world knows by now, he won a Silver Star by beaching the boat he commanded, to jump off in pursuit of a Viet Cong guerrilla, whom he shot dead. He did not have to be in Vietnam, he could have been at home; he did not have to beach the boat - the standard tactic would have been to pull back from the shore all guns firing, not ram the prow into the mud. And as commander of the boat, he did not have to chase the guerrilla himself.

He did it all simply because he is a fighter, and a ferocious one. I am quite certain that if kerry had been president on September 11 he would have reacted more violently than Bush, sending bombers into Afghanistan, not just Special Forces scouts, and demanding immediate co-operation - or else - from Saudi Arabia, not just Pakistan. European anti-militarists have really picked the wrong guy as their hero.

It is true that kerry opposed the 1991 Gulf War (as did Senator Nunn, among other certified hawks) but he urged the use of force in Bosnia, regretted the failure to invade Rwanda before that, approved the Panama intervention of the first President Bush and was an enthusiast for the 1999 Kosovo war, before voting in favour of the war in Iraq. If kerry is elected next month, he will certainly not act out his apparently clear-cut opposition to the war by immediately withdrawing US forces from Iraq - although even the Bush Administration is pursuing a form of disengagement, striving to add to the number of Iraqi police and National Guard as quickly as possible rather than sending more US troops. With a rifle strength of well under 60,000, there are not even enough American soldiers to control the Baghdad area, let alone the whole Sunni triangle.

kerry is unlikely to change course. He too will pursue disengagement, with the aim of leaving Iraq to its elected government after January, with as much of an army, national guard and police force as can be built up in the meantime.

The only difference - and here is the greatest irony - is that kerry would almost certainly disengage more slowly than Bush simply as a matter of political positioning: he is the one more vulnerable to accusations of abandoning Iraq to Islamic fanatics, warlord-priests and Saddam loyalists.

It is not just over Iraq that the hawkish kerry will confound European liberals. He has harshly criticised Bush for not being tough enough with Iran - another irony, because it implies a preference for unilateral action rather than the multilateral diplomacy he supposedly espouses.

Iran's fanatical priests and Revolutionary Guard thugs, having faked the last elections, now rule the country behind the increasingly thin facade of President Khatami's elected but powerless government. The extremists have been playing a diplomatic game with the E3 - Britain, France and Germany - and with the International Atomic Energy Authority, while using Iran's oil revenues to import all the missile components and nuclear equipment they can.

The Bush Administration has looked over the options for direct action, everything from air strikes to sabotage but, increasingly committed in Iraq, it has done nothing. It has instead focused on diplomacy to restrict Iranian imports of forbidden materials from Russia and China, and on intelligence operations to shut down smuggling networks.

All that is crucial, because in spite of boasts of self-sufficiency, Iran can do little on its own. Gaining time is important: the fundamentalists are increasingly unpopular, they represent a shrinking minority of the most backward village population (and that, too, only in the half of the country that is inhabited by Persians as opposed to other ethnic minorities), and they will not be in power for ever.

What would kerry do differently? Nothing much either way, most likely, but it is simply an administrative inevitability that the air strike and sabotage options will be examined once again. One wonders how The Guardian's editorial would read if bombs ordered by a kerry White House were to start falling on Natanz and Arak, where the major nuclear facilities are being built.

As for the more prosaic business of day-to-day military policy, kerry is unlikely to change the Bush plan of removing US forces from Cold War garrisons in western Europe and Korea. kerry advisers also agree with all the "transformation" programmes of the Bush Administration - the change to aircraft without pilots, to air bombing instead of artillery, to command networks instead of hierarchies, to lighter, higher-quality forces.

Unless kerry really does ask Congress for the money to add two Army divisions, one will need a microscope to tell the difference in military policy if kerry wins the election. Perhaps The Guardian and its readers should take a close look at those pictures of kerry with his shotgun after last week's goose shoot: there goes a genuine American hawk, red in tooth and policy.

Edward Luttwak is a senior fellow of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Gimmie and F gimmie a U gimmie a D whats that spell?
nm we already got a cheerleader for prez...
 

faiznne

Banned
Aug 29, 2004
140
0
0
The reason Osama Bin LAden hates us so much is cause of our messed-up policy in the Middle East. Favoring the Israeli Jews over many Muslims. If I was president I would not go to war with Iraq. I don't think it's good that the USA fights Israel's wars by proxy:

Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Advisor
Emad Mekay


Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ?the unstated threat? during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,? Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

?And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,? said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

Source: Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23078

General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course 'Headed Over Niagara Falls'

But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.

Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?

?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?

For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.

Source: http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&amp;event_id=234

And there's also the infamous "Jewish lobby" that influences American foreign policy in favor of the Israelis at the detriment of the Arabs. AIPAC-- American Israel Public Affairs Committee-- the 2nd strongest lobbying group in America, only after the NRA.

AIPAC-Influenced Pro-Israel PAC Contributions
http://www.washington-report.o.../Oct_2004/0410019.html

U.S. Aid to Israel 1948-Present
www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
It is the citizenry that is responsible for the government's actions. Of, For, and By the PEOPLE right? Wake up and smell the rotting garbage! Time to throw the bastards out and try some real democracy?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Gimmie and F gimmie a U gimmie a D whats that spell?
nm we already got a cheerleader for prez...

where you think kerrys getting his 200million to run this campiagn? underemployed anti-war activists? LOL
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Gimmie and F gimmie a U gimmie a D whats that spell?
nm we already got a cheerleader for prez...

where you think kerrys getting his 200million to run this campiagn? underemployed anti-war activists? LOL

laugh all you want, you're drowning in it too. we all are.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
faiznne,

We are israels bitch. We are at the stage now we let them walk for spying/treason and even appologise to them for anti-semitic enforcement then both sides suck them off at thier lastest conference. http://antiwar.com/justin/
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
Imperial Hubris pretty much echos what Osoma said. They are at war with us due to our policies abroad, specifically to Muslims. They do not just fight for no reason. They were against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan for the same reasons, they didn't turn to the US until we setup camp in their holy land in Saudi Arabia.

Couldn't agree more. Americans need to take a cold, hard look at themselves and the policies of their administration. Maybe then they might learn that OBL is not all that's wrong in this world.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |