What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto of Suing Saudi Arabia Bill (2 Viewers)

cstu

Footballguy
This is absolutely ridiculous. 

Congress poised to override Obama’s veto of 9/11 bill



 





 

By Karoun Demirjian and Juliet Eilperin September 28 at 2:25 PM

The Senate on Wednesday voted to override President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged support for the terrorists who carried out the attacks.

The vote was 97 to 1.

The House is expected to vote later in the day and if successful, it will be the first time Congress has overridden a veto during the Obama administration.

“Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who co-authored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said in a statement.

Traveling aboard Air Force One Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest called the vote “the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983.”

“Ultimately these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today,” Earnest said, noting that at least one GOP senator said some of his colleagues had failed to read the bill before voting on it initially. “To have members of the United States senate only recently informed of the negative impact of this bill on our service members and our diplomats is in itself embarrassing.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cast the lone vote to sustain the veto after receiving a letter from Obama arguing the consequences could be “devastating,” and urging him “to vote to sustain the veto.”

In the letter, which Obama sent Tuesday to both Reid and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the president said that he was “fully committed to assisting the families of the victims of terrorist attacks of Sept. 11″ but the legislation would put military and other U.S. officials overseas at risk. The bill’s enactment, he warned, “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of of our response to such attacks.”

Reid voted against the override despite telling reporters earlier this month that “I support that legislation” and Schumer’s efforts.

“He’s always had the president’s back,” said Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson.

McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the president called the majority leader after the override vote was scheduled, but neither the conservation nor the letter did anything to change his mind.

The sharp rebuke of the president is a sign that Saudi Arabia’s fortunes are waning on Capitol Hill. The Saudi government has denied it had any ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and has lobbied fiercely against the bill. But victims’ families have pushed for the legislation so they can press their case in courts, and lawmakers who support the measure argue Saudi Arabia should not be concerned if it did nothing wrong.

Last week,  the Senate voted on a resolution to restrict arms sales to Saudi Arabia until it stops targeting civilians in Yemen.

“This is not a time when U.S.-Saudi relations have much popular support on either side,” said F. Gregory Gause, head of the international affairs department at Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service. Just as the Saudis think the administration has tilted too closely to Iran, he said, many U.S. politicians blame Saudi Arabia for the globe spread of Sunni extremism. “I think that’s really simplistic.”

[Saudi Arabia is facing unprecedented scrutiny from Congress]

Both chambers passed the 9/11 legislation without dissent earlier this year. But now, several lawmakers are echoing the White House argument that the legislation could set a dangerous precedent, inviting other nations to respond by suing American diplomats, military personnel and other officials in foreign courts.

Critics of the bill are now focusing on how to scale back the measure once it becomes law. Approximately 20 senators have signed a letter expressing their intention to return to the issue during the lame duck session if the new law generates negative consequences.

“We see the writing on the wall: the override is going to occur,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been leading efforts to negotiate a narrower alternative, before the vote.

Corker is one of several members who argue the bill, which would allow courts to waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in situations involving acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts.

He complained that if the bill becomes law “what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers,” adding that U.S. personnel might find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.

Yet he and other senators who expressed similar concerns elected, in the end, to vote for the override.

Sen. Angus King (I-Me.) said he voted for the override because “concrete benefit” for the 9/11 victims’ families outweighed “speculative detriment” to American officials and foreign relations.

In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked “damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries” and “could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts.”

Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto.

[Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, likely setting up the first congressional override of his presidency]

CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill’s “grave implications for the national security of the United States” in a statement Wednesday.

Critics guessed their colleagues might be more open to scaling back the measure after observing any international “blowback” once it becomes law. Corker said he is working with Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) — who also supported the override Wednesday — in the hopes that “during the lame duck, maybe there’s a way to be successful in tightening this up.”

One alternative lawmakers have discussed is limiting the measure to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, as a way of satisfying the demands of the 9/11 victims’ families without opening the United States to continuing diplomatic and legal problems.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview that it could take time to grasp the bill’s full implications, and there may be “some time to tweak the law before some of the most damaging consequences become clear.”

“But the biggest issue is that it opens up government agencies to court-ordered discovery,” Alterman said, adding that the federal government could face lawsuits from those who have been victims of drone strikes and other American military activities. “It’s not limited to Saudi Arabia, and it’s likely to have a much larger impact on the U.S. government than the Saudi government, because the U.S. government takes rules very seriously.”

While White House staffers have reached out to certain members of Congress, Obama did not launch an all-out lobbying push to pull members away from this bill.

“I know of no counting or anything they’ve asked me to do on that,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. Pelosi intends to vote to override Obama’s veto.

Supporters have not warmed to any of the alternative proposals critics are floating and Cornyn dismissed the idea Congress will revisit the legislation later this year.

“As far as I’m concerned, this bill is a done deal,” Cornyn said. “Obviously any senator or group of senators can offer any additional legislation they want, and we’ll take it up in due course.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't we just pay Iran billions of dollars because of a similar lawsuit? I'm unsure why we would pay that on the one hand and then argue that our own victims don't have the same right. 

Who cares if it hurts our relationship with Saudi Arabia? If they helped fund the 9-11 terrorists then they absolutely should pay for that and only have themselves to blame.

 
Didn't we just pay Iran billions of dollars because of a similar lawsuit? I'm unsure why we would pay that on the one hand and then argue that our own victims don't have the same right. 
No.  Not a similar lawsuit. 

The "Iran payment" was contractual damages.  Iran bought weapons from us.  We never delivered them. There was then a lot of interest, so you get $400 million.

Nobody's concerned about other states suing the United States on contract claims.  That's common.

People are worried about waiving the United States' sovereign immunity to tort claims arising out of the actions of US military and intelligence personnel. 

 
I have no idea what this really means.  There's so much spin out there...

But I do find it odd that it was voted 99-1 to override a veto.  That's a pretty rare thing, and it's odd for the Democrats to overrule the president as well.

The only thing I can think of is that it's a bill that's extremely popular w the public on both sides?

 
I have no idea what this really means.  There's so much spin out there...

But I do find it odd that it was voted 99-1 to override a veto.  That's a pretty rare thing, and it's odd for the Democrats to overrule the president as well.

The only thing I can think of is that it's a bill that's extremely popular w the public on both sides?
It is a bill dealing with the families of the victims of 9/11, there is no way the chicken sheets in congress are voting against this bill.  It was all cya.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no idea what this really means.  There's so much spin out there...

But I do find it odd that it was voted 99-1 to override a veto.  That's a pretty rare thing, and it's odd for the Democrats to overrule the president as well.

The only thing I can think of is that it's a bill that's extremely popular w the public on both sides?
Of course it's popular with the public.  Who doesn't want 9/11 victim's families to have access to the courts against a state that gave material support to the hijackers? 

The problem is that the negative consequences are kind of hard to explain and not self-evident.  If I said that the US could end up being sued for having a drone bomb a wedding in Afghanistan, you might understandably not think that this is a bad thing.  But you can see how every foreign policy decision could end up being litigated in a foreign tribunal, many of which are not noted for fundamentally fair processes. 

For this reason, compensation for this stuff is normally negotiated between governments in the form of a Settlement Fund.  That's how we did Holocaust reparations, for instance. 

 
No.  Not a similar lawsuit. 

The "Iran payment" was contractual damages.  Iran bought weapons from us.  We never delivered them. There was then a lot of interest, so you get $400 million.

Nobody's concerned about other states suing the United States on contract claims.  That's common.

People are worried about waiving the United States' sovereign immunity to tort claims arising out of the actions of US military and intelligence personnel. 
I'm having a hard time understanding Obama's obvious disgust with this bill (as expressed by Earnest). They are worried that if we allow residents to sue the SA gov't, then the SA gov't may allow SA residents to sue the US gov't for torts it commits in SA?

 
Didn't we just pay Iran billions of dollars because of a similar lawsuit? I'm unsure why we would pay that on the one hand and then argue that our own victims don't have the same right. 

Who cares if it hurts our relationship with Saudi Arabia? If they helped fund the 9-11 terrorists then they absolutely should pay for that and only have themselves to blame.
I care. I think this is very unwise. 

 
Because we need Saudi Arabia to help us defeat radical Islam and to counter Iran and to provide a steady flow of oil. We need them to be stable. 
And you think that allowing US residents to sue the SA gov't will so anger the SA gov't that they will not be our ally in a fight against terrorism?

I'm not asking as a #### - I'm seriously trying to understand the opposition so I can make up my mind on which side is right.

 
Because we need Saudi Arabia to help us defeat radical Islam and to counter Iran and to provide a steady flow of oil. We need them to be stable. 
To play devil's advocate, supporting corrupt and repressive regimes like the Saudis and the Baathists hasn't exactly been a rousing success for us these past 50 years or so.

 
I'm having a hard time understanding Obama's obvious disgust with this bill (as expressed by Earnest). They are worried that if we allow residents to sue the SA gov't, then the SA gov't may allow SA residents to sue the US gov't for torts it commits in SA?
Or Afghanis in Afghanistan.  Yes.

In order to be sued in a foreign jurisdiction, a state must consent to jurisdiction.  And that's generally considered a reciprocal obligation.  Nobody can sue Saudi Arabia in the EDNY.  Nobody can sue the United States in a court in Saudi Arabia.

The United States and Saudi Arabia may both consent to the jurisdiction of The Hague or some other international tribunal in some instances.

The worry is that if the United States does not recognized Saudi Arabia's sovereign immunity, NOBODY needs to recognize the United States' sovereign immunity.  And for a country that is active in foreign policy as the United States, that could be problematic.  Maybe not.  Maybe the US just refuses to pay any judgment (which is what I would expect would happen if Saudi Arabia were sued in the United States and lost).  But it seems to me like a speculative benefit to 9/11 families (because enforcing the judgment is still nearly impossible) just as much as a speculative harm to US foreign policy. 

I think Obama's disgust comes from being placed in the position of having to be the "bad guy parent" when our legislature really should have thought this through a bit more. 

 
And you think that allowing US residents to sue the SA gov't will so anger the SA gov't that they will not be our ally in a fight against terrorism?

I'm not asking as a #### - I'm seriously trying to understand the opposition so I can make up my mind on which side is right.
Much like trying to force Mexico to pay for the wall, it's an embarrassment which will either force Saudi Arabia to turn against us or create instability in their government. It's a loss of face, an open insult to them. 

 
To play devil's advocate, supporting corrupt and repressive regimes like the Saudis and the Baathists hasn't exactly been a rousing success for us these past 50 years or so.
Specifically about the Baathists, it seemed better than the alternative turned out to be.

That aside I'd prefer a Saudi Arabia that did not try to spread Wahaabism/Salafism and support extremists. I just don't think that is a likely outcome

It would also be nice if the Sunnis and the Shias took a page out of Northern Irelands book and tried to behave nice to each other.

Not holding my breath on that one either

 
To play devil's advocate, supporting corrupt and repressive regimes like the Saudis and the Baathists hasn't exactly been a rousing success for us these past 50 years or so.
That's true. But what choice do we have? I was hopeful about Arab Spring, but the truth is that the alternative to repressive regimes always seems to be radical Islam and wholesale instability. 

 
Or Afghanis in Afghanistan.  Yes.

In order to be sued in a foreign jurisdiction, a state must consent to jurisdiction.  And that's generally considered a reciprocal obligation.  Nobody can sue Saudi Arabia in the EDNY.  Nobody can sue the United States in a court in Saudi Arabia.

The United States and Saudi Arabia may both consent to the jurisdiction of The Hague or some other international tribunal in some instances.

The worry is that if the United States does not recognized Saudi Arabia's sovereign immunity, NOBODY needs to recognize the United States' sovereign immunity.  And for a country that is active in foreign policy as the United States, that could be problematic.  Maybe not.  Maybe the US just refuses to pay any judgment (which is what I would expect would happen if Saudi Arabia were sued in the United States and lost).  But it seems to me like a speculative benefit to 9/11 families (because enforcing the judgment is still nearly impossible) just as much as a speculative harm to US foreign policy. 

I think Obama's disgust comes from being placed in the position of having to be the "bad guy parent" when our legislature really should have thought this through a bit more. 
Are they planning on going after Saudi Arabia as a nation or looking to follow the $$$ and go after individual Saudi nationals who may or may not have assets tied up in this country? No idea how this would work...

 
Much like trying to force Mexico to pay for the wall, it's an embarrassment which will either force Saudi Arabia to turn against us or create instability in their government. It's a loss of face, an open insult to them. 
And the one thing Muslims hate more than anything is loss of face.

I'm all for pushing SA to modernize but I find this the specific issue of 9/11 suing their government counter-productive.

 
Are they planning on going after Saudi Arabia as a nation or looking to follow the $$$ and go after individual Saudi nationals who may or may not have assets tied up in this country? No idea how this would work...
This legislation opens up the court system for the families to sue the Saudi government.

 
Are they planning on going after Saudi Arabia as a nation or looking to follow the $$$ and go after individual Saudi nationals who may or may not have assets tied up in this country? No idea how this would work...
I don't know.  What we have precedent for is for the State Department to negotiate with a foreign government to set up some type of victim's compensation fund with some kind of quasi-judicial panel to determine entitlements to some form of reparation.

We have agreements (that I'm aware of) with Germany, Austria, and Switzerland so that descendants of those who lost property to the Nazis in World War II can get compensated.  That would probably be the way forward here.  Where courts don't have jurisdiction, we generally consider it a political question subject to the discretion of the coordinate branches of government.

 
That's true. But what choice do we have? I was hopeful about Arab Spring, but the truth is that the alternative to repressive regimes always seems to be radical Islam and wholesale instability. 
Obviously there are no easy solutions. I do think that the actions of the West in general have contributed to the instability and problems as opposed to keeping a lid on it, though. The Saudis have been funding the spread of radical Islam for decades -- and given the huge resources that they have and the US provided shield that they hide behind, I'd say they've actually been more damaging to the overall situation in the ME than some of the folks that we don't officially get along with.

 
That's not the reason to be against this bill.
Agree, those are on the table but #### em. They foment radical Islam, they are not the bulldog on the leash that will contain Iran and #### their oil.

I'm much more interested in hearing Saints reason why he is against the override vote.

 
Because we need Saudi Arabia to help us defeat radical Islam and to counter Iran and to provide a steady flow of oil. We need them to be stable. 
SAs rhetoric aside they need us to keep their kingdom propped up. We need them but still they should be brought to heel .

 
This legislation opens up the court system for the families to sue the Saudi government.
If that's the case, then this is ridiculous. It's pure political grandstanding and the only thing it will accomplish is a slap in the face to the Saudis (which I don't necessarily think is automatically a bad thing).

 
And you think that allowing US residents to sue the SA gov't will so anger the SA gov't that they will not be our ally in a fight against terrorism?

I'm not asking as a #### - I'm seriously trying to understand the opposition so I can make up my mind on which side is right.
Imagine if someone filed suit against you for molesting their child. Innocent or guilty you are tagged with having to defend yourself. In the eyes of your friends, family, coworkers, etc you are "that guy who went to court for child molestation".

Do you think the Saudi's want to have to defend themselves in court on counts of being connected to terrorism? Do you think they might be mad at the people who make that happen?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion said:
Obviously there are no easy solutions. I do think that the actions of the West in general have contributed to the instability and problems as opposed to keeping a lid on it, though. The Saudis have been funding the spread of radical Islam for decades -- and given the huge resources that they have had and the US provided shield that they hide behind, I'd say they've actually been more damaging to the overall situation in the ME than some of the folks that we don't officially get along with.
Fixed that tense for you. The Saudis are running a deficit for the first time ever, they just cut subsidies on utilities and pay for public servants. They, like all other oil price dependent states are hurting.

ironically Iran may be hurting less than any of the others as the price they can get now is likely higher than what they could get when all the sanctions were in place 

 
Imagine if someone filed suit against you for molesting their child. Innocent or guilty you are tagged with having to defend yourself. In the eyes of your friends, family, coworkers, etc you are "that guy who went to court for child molestation".

Do you think the Saudi's want to have to defend themselves in court on counts of being connected to terrorism? Do you think they might be mad at the people who make that happen?
Well sure, but if you molested my kid, I don't really give a #### how angry you are that I sued you.

Having said that, I think there are legit arguments in here that show this is a dumb bill. 

 
Imagine if someone filed suit against you for molesting their child. Innocent or guilty you are tagged with having to defend yourself. In the eyes of your friends, family, coworkers, etc you are "that guy who went to court for child molestation".

Do you think the Saudi's want to have to defend themselves in court on counts of being connected to terrorism? Do you think they might be mad at the people who make that happen?
There's no evidence of the Saudi Arabian government being actively involved in the 9/11 attacks.  Various people with connections to the government knew some of the hijackers but there's nothing linking them a government conspiracy regarding 9/11. 

Here's a link to the classified pages of the 9/11 report that describe the people with Saudi government connections.

 
How is discovery handled if the Saudi's merely say, "nah, we won't make Habib available for depostion" or simply refuse to comply with orders for document production and the like?  Who gets put in the slammer for contempt?  Can a judge levy a hefty fine and if so how hefty would it have to be to make the Saudi's take notice?  Can a government official who is named as a witness be arrested and detained if they visit the US while in contempt?  Is diplomatic immunity waived for individuals in the case?

 
This is a snip of the letter in opposition from the Director of the CIA.

This is a snip of the letter from the President.

- Let me say that if I thought that the KSA had a hand in the attacks of 9/11/01 there would be nothing which would stop me from demanding revenge of any sort in any civil or military venue, and I do mean revenge.

However the above are not my real reasons for opposing this, at least initially, my main points here are twofold: 1. we largely have agreements with countries around the world which protect our soldiers and diplomats from a wide variety of accusations. If we lose that we face having our own personnel put on trial.  However that alone would still not convince me if I thought that SA had something to do with the attacks. The point here is just that we better have a damned good reason for going after SA, which leads me to my second reason. - 2. The whole drive for this appears to be from the '28 pages' from the 9/11/01 report. IIRC those pages have now been released. We have had a Republican president and a Democratic president. We have had a fully Republican Congress and a fully Democratic Congress and a split Congress. We have Foia laws which have gone all the way to yanking out almost every relevant email that our former SOS possessed even to the point of seizing the server from her home. What are we lacking in transparency here? And what is the evidence in the 9/11/01 report or in the released 28 pages which leads us to thinking we will possibly find real proof vs SA and not just generate some show trial in the favor of genuinely angered families and countrymen?

Also we already had a finding against Iran for the same basis. So now we are going to find that mortal enemies Iran and SA both were in league with each other to attack the US?

It's a little like the JFK investigation. Yes, one man did it folks, I hate to break it to you. And yes those SOBs OBL and Zwahiri and KSM concocted one of the most evil plots ever and we were open hearted and naive enough to be mugged by those sociopaths.

Things are just getting a little Trutherish. I could be wrong, I'm all ears as to real evidence, and I can tell this thing will be proceeding anyway, but I don't have great optimism for the quality of fact finding that will be taking place. I sense it will mostly be based on raw emotions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know.  What we have precedent for is for the State Department to negotiate with a foreign government to set up some type of victim's compensation fund with some kind of quasi-judicial panel to determine entitlements to some form of reparation.

We have agreements (that I'm aware of) with Germany, Austria, and Switzerland so that descendants of those who lost property to the Nazis in World War II can get compensated.  That would probably be the way forward here.  Where courts don't have jurisdiction, we generally consider it a political question subject to the discretion of the coordinate branches of government.
I'm buying what your selling. So who in our government would typically negotiate these settlements? Is that a Legislative branch function or an Executive branch function? I know the Treaty power is a legislative function, but this wouldn't be a treaty. 

 
This is a snip of the letter in opposition from the Director of the CIA.

This is a snip of the letter from the President.

- Let me say that if I thought that the KSA had a hand in the attacks of 9/11/01 there would be nothing which would stop me from demanding revenge of any sort in any civil or military venue, and I do mean revenge.

However the above are not my real reasons for opposing this, at least initially, my main points here are twofold: 1. we largely have agreements with countries around the world which protect our soldiers and diplomats from a wide variety of accusations. If we lose that we face having our own personnel put on trial.  However that alone would still not convince me if I thought that SA had something to do with the attacks. The point here is just that we better have a damned good reason for going after SA, which leads me to my second reason. - 2. The whole drive for this appears to be from the '28 pages' from the 9/11/01 report. IIRC those pages have now been released. We have had a Republican president and a Democratic president. We have had a fully Republican Congress and a fully Democratic Congress and a split Congress. We have Foia laws which have gone all the way to yanking out almost every relevant email that our former SOS possessed even to the point of seizing the server from her home. What are we lacking in transparency here? And what is the evidence in the 9/11/01 report or in the released 28 pages which leads us to thinking we will possibly find real proof vs SA and not just generate some show trial in the favor of genuinely angered families and countrymen?

Also we already had a finding against Iran for the same basis. So now we are going to find that mortal enemies Iran and SA both were in league with each other to attack the US?

It's a little like the JFK investigation. Yes, one man did it folks, I hate to break it to you. And yes those SOBs OBL and Zwahiri and KSM concocted one of the most evil plots ever and we were open hearted and naive enough to be mugged by those sociopaths.

Things are just getting a little Trutherish. I could be wrong, I'm all ears as to real evidence, and I can tell this thing will be proceeding anyway, but I don't have great optimism for the quality of fact finding that will be taking place. I sense it will mostly be based on raw emotions.
This is a good post. My initial reaction was to take the opposite stance, but what you guys are saying makes a lot of sense to me. 

It's pretty amazing that the one time our Congress all comes together in solidarity, to the point of vetoing Obama for the first time, that they manage to all be so epically wrong.

 
It's pretty amazing that the one time our Congress all comes together in solidarity, to the point of vetoing Obama for the first time, that they manage to all be so epically wrong.
Ridiculous, but completely unsurprising. "Eff the Saudis, love me some 9/11 families" makes for some spectacular pandering on both sides.

 
To play devil's advocate, supporting corrupt and repressive regimes like the Saudis and the Baathists hasn't exactly been a rousing success for us these past 50 years or so.
you are right.  Seems like anything we do over there is not a "rousing success".  Maybe initially but later it turns to junk.  Don't know the merits of this thread to comment except your statement says a lot.

 
you are right.  Seems like anything we do over there is not a "rousing success".  Maybe initially but later it turns to junk.  Don't know the merits of this thread to comment except your statement says a lot.
I think he was being facetious 

 
It's another symptom of the Trump disease that has taken over this country: populism. Let's do what feels good. To hell with the long term consequences. USA! USA! USA! 

 
Or thinking that Saudi Arabia is fighting it instead of fomenting and funding it....
Is there anyone that thinks SA is fighting radical Islam?  I'd like to meet said person.....been trying to off load some ocean front property in Nevada, maybe they're interested.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top