America Betrayed: Bush, Bin Laden, & 9/11 Part 1

Chapter 6

Wahhabism, Nicaragua, Iran Iraq War, Iran Contra, and the Sadat Assassination


“The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and train ing to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world.” Amnesty International, October 1998

The CIA is like a living organism, that has its own brain. The CIA has the ability to function independently of those who have been elected to sadate92c“power,” or those who have been appointed to tem porarily head the agency.

CIA directors, like Presidents, come and go. What remains in place, is the mission, the networks, and the operatives who make things happen, even as President, like CIA directors, come and go.

And often the “mission” has nothing to do with national se curity, but instead serves the long range financial interests of bank ers, arms merchants, drug dealers, oilmen, and the Wall Street elite (1). The mission, more often than not, is corporate terrorism and the enslavement and mass murder of those who resist.

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.”

“I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.”

“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for.”

“One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.”

“There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war prepa rations, and a “Big Boss” SuperNationalisticCapitalism.”

“It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to MajorGen eral. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

“I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higherups.”

“This is typical with everyone in the military service.”

“I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for Ameri can oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 19091912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar inter ests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.”

“During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

Wpictures-from-history-04-742870ar, terror, and instability are great for those in the business of war. War and civil unrest is a wonderful means of achieving short and longterm political and financial goals, such as the over throw of sovereign nations and the acquisition of another country’s and another people’s resources, such as land, labor, minerals, and black gold—oil that is.

During the Nixon and Ford years, the United States was fight ing a multifront “terrorist war” against the people of South and Central America (2), the people of South East Asia (3), the people of the Middle East, Iraq in particular (4) and as detailed in chapter 5, the people of Europe. In Germany, Belgium, and Italy in par ticular CIAdirected terrorist teams were bombing, shooting, and killing civilians. In Italy this resulted in the destabilization and overthrow of the democratically elected government of Italian Prime Minister Moro who was taken hostage and killed. It has been said that Bush masterminded the plot (5).

In the late 1970s, the CIA hatched a plan for the Middle East, which was designed to woo away Arabic, Islamic, and terrorist states, such as Libya, Iraq, and Egypt, from the Soviet sphere of influence. The long range goal was to gain control over Middle Eastern, and Central Asian oil reserves. This was to be accom plished, in part, through secret military and financial aid provided by the CIA. However, in the case of Libya and Iraq, the provision of aid was illegal as these were designated terrorist states.

Simultaneously, Islamic “holy warriors” and terrorists were trained, financed, and armed by the CIA—with the assistance of the bin Ladens and the Saudi Royal family as well as Pakistan’s Intelligence Service, the ISI. These CIAtrained terrorists were then unleashed on Afghanistan (6), Iraq (4), Egypt (7), and in 1980, Iran (8,9).


The economy of the world is dependent on black gold, oil that is. Saudi Arabia has the largest pool of oil reserves. The desert kingdom is awash with oil. The second largest known reserves are beneath the soil of Iraq (10). However, in the 1970s, evidence be gan to accrue to suggest that beneath the Caspian Basin and in the adjoining Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan, lay incredible huge pools of oil, per haps as much or more than the total reserves of Iraq (11).

Total world oil consumption, in 1979, was 23.41 billion bar rels. Prior to 1979, estimates of yearly oil consumption had been based on a simple mathematical formula, i.e. multiplying the world population by the factor 4.43. Thus, based on estimates of world population growth, reasonable and quite accurate predictions could be made (12).

However, oil is consumed at different rates by two different groups, i.e. the people of highly industrialized countries vs third world countries where oil consumption is relatively minimal. For example, Canadian consumption of oil, in the year 2000, was 20.71 barrels per person. By contrast, in India only 0.75 barrels per per son were consumed (10,12).

In the 1970s, it was recognized, that India and China, each with over 1 billion citizens, would gradually, then more rapidly, become industrialized, and oil consumption would explode. Some analysts were estimating that oil consumption, in these two countries alone, might be more than 75 billion barrels in the year 2010, and that world oil consumption would thus be in excess of 100 billion barrels per year (13).

It was also recognized, that whoever controlled the refining, shipping, and distribution of this oil, would thus have a strangle hold on these two emerging industrial nations.

Oil is produced by a number of independent, interdepen dent, and closely aligned groups, such as the “seven sisters” (Exxon, Gulf, Texaco, Mobil, Socal, BP and Shell), and OPEC which has eleven members (Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait).

In the 1970s, it was recognized that oil production in most of the nonOPEC countries, would begin to peak and might even be gin to decline by the year 2000—and this in fact is the case (13). By contrast, it was recognized that OPEC oil production would not begin to peak until well after the year 2010. Strategically, this means that OPEC nations would become stronger, and the nonOPEC nations would become weaker, such that, at some “crossover event” the balance of power might shift. This is one of the main reasons why the U.S. has attributed so much importance to dominating this region, and maintaining a positive relationship with Saudi Arabia in particular. Indeed, the strategic importance of the oilproducing Gulfstates and Saudi Arabia was recognized even before 1950.

In the 1970s, there were two superpowers: the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Both were struggling to gain or maintain influence in the Middle East and among the Gulf states. Libya, Egypt, and Iraq were in the Russian corner. Moreover, the incredibly oilrich, albeit undeveloped regions of Central Asia and the Caspian basin were part of the Soviet Union.

In the 1970s, it was recognized that in the future, who ever controlled and developed the oil resources of the Caspian basin and Central Asia, as well as that of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, would also have a strangle hold, not just on India and China, but the world.

Those who established this control would also become wealthy beyond their dreams.

By the late 1970s, one of the keys to gaining access to the oilrich central Asian states, was Afghanistan. If these states were to be destabilized and stripped away from the Soviet Union, then Afghanistan, with its Sovietbacked government, would have to be torn lose first. Before and after Afghanistan fell, terrorist attacks would be launched into the underbelly of the Soviet Union (14).

Afghanistan was also a key, because Afghanistan offered the best route for an oil pipeline—a pipeline that would pump the oil extracted from the central Asian states, across Afghanistan, to Pa kistan, and thus to the world markets via the Arabian sea.

However, in order for western oil companies and the CIA to accomplish this, required Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as a partner.

The willingness to involve Saudi Arabia was strategic and based on political reality. If the ruling families of Saudi Arabia were not promised a huge piece of the central Asian pie, they would refuse to cooperate in any destabilizing attacks on the Soviet Union. As Saudi Arabia was also a major source of funds to Pakistan and its ISI, if Saudi Arabia were not part of the equation, Pakistan too would refuse to cooperate, and might even align itself with the Soviet Union.

The Saudis were willing to cooperate for a number of rea sons, including those related to the spread of the Islamic religion, and the creation of an Islamic superstate, and because they wished to retain their power. If America alone won the central Asia oil “prize” the Saudis would lose the power of oil and their ability to effect the world economy by turning the oil spigot on or off.

Likewise, given that Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest oil reserves, they key to controlling the world’s economy, and thus the world, required a partnership with the Saudi kingdom. Moreover, without Saudi help and Saudi funding, it would have been impos sible for the CIA and the Wall Street elite, to destabilize or signifi cantly influence those Middle Eastern states, such as Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan, which, in the 1970s, were in the corner of the Soviet Union.

As noted, religion was also a major factor in the establishment of the partnership. Before and after the 1970s, the Saudis were eager to destabilize and overthrow the Soviet Communist state, as well as the rulers of even fellow OPEC members, because of major issues related to religion, i.e. the Sunni vs the Shiit branches of Islam (14,15).

The Saudi agenda was to export their Wahhabism brand of the Sunni Islamic religion not only into the southern Asian states of the Soviet Union, but into Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan (14,

15). It was a SaudiSunniWahhabi dream to create a unified, fascist, Islamic superstate, and to terrorize, murder, and destroy not just those worshipping non-Islamic religions, but the Shiit and all other vari ants of Islam, especially those variants which emphasized the toler ant, peaceful, poetically mystical schools of thought such as Sufism.

As detailed, for example, in Stephen Schwartz’s recent book, The Two Faces of Islam, “Wahhabism exalts and promotes death in every element of its existence, the suicide of its adherents, mass murder as a weapon against civilization, and above all the suffoca tion of the mercy embodied in Islam” as represented by the “bright aspect of Sufi traditionalism, [which is] happy, filled with love of God and humanity….. Wahhabi fundamentalism,” he writes, is “ugly… narrow, rigid, tyrannical, separatist, supremacist and violent.”

It could thus be argued that Wahhabism is a Nazi version of Islam, which in turn might explain why the Saudis linked up with Hitler in the 1930s (see chapter 3). In the 1930s, the Saudis em braced Nazism for a number of reasons, including their shared goal of destroying the Soviet Union, and gaining access to the oilrich underbelly.

Forty years later, the goal remained the same: to first topple the Sovietbacked regime, and to then take the “holy war” into the underbelly of the Soviet Union, in order to grab the oilrich central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan (14,15,16). “Holy Warriors” would do the dirty work.

In the late 1970s and continuing into the 1990s, the primary mission of these CIAtrained and Saudifinanced terrorists, referred to as the mujahideen, was to attack Afghan villages, and bomb health centers, government offices, and even Kabul University, and to rape, murder, and terrorize the civilian population. In this regard, they were highly successful. Tens of thousands of civilians, as well as Soviet troops were “butchered in a hideous fashion” (5). The mujahedeen’s battle for supremacy resulted in the death and maiming of over 100,000 civilians and the displacement of millions people who be came refugees (17).

Iraq, too, was and is a target of the Wahhabis, as the Saudis believe that Iraq is a broken off piece of Arabia. Indeed, for the last several centuries, and until 1922, Iraq, as well as Kuwait, were part of Arabia. However, at the close of the first world war, and with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France pounced on the Middle East, and divided up the spoils. They created artificial bound aries and thus new states in the Middle East, as they believed that by fragmenting the Arab peoples they would be easier to dominate and control.

Britain broke Arabia into three states: Iraq, Kuwait, and Arabia. Each state was then given its own ruler, who in turn owed their posi tions to France and Britain. Kuwait was handed to the alSabah family. The Hashemite King Hussein was awarded Jordan. And Arabia was given to the Saud family and which was then renamed after Ibn Saud.

King Ibn Saud, however, was determined to someday unify his country and to erase the artificial boundaries which created the bastard states of Kuwait and Iraq. Like his ancestors, he also dreamed of creating an Islamic superstate, encompassing all the nations of the Middle East, and in fact, the world. In 1922, how ever, it was an impossible dream.


In the 1970s, U.S. and Saudi Arabia formed an unholy alli ance. Under the guise of fighting communism, terrorists were trained, funded, equipped and then unleashed on the nations of Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. At the same time, Saudi Arabia was actively funding and establishing fundamentalist Islamic schools in nations, such as Pakistan and Egypt, which in turn be came breeding grounds for terrorists. Likewise, the US was trying to curry favor with some of these same countries in order to woo them from the Soviet sphere.

As will be detailed, part of that strategy involved funding and providing arms and weapons to Libya—a Soviet ally—which were used to attack Egypt. Egypt repeatedly beat back these assaults which the Egyptians erroneously believed were sponsored, through Libya, by the Soviet Union.

The first tangible fruits of these well devised plans were plucked from the tree in 1976, when Egyptian President, Anwar al Sadat ended Egypt’s Treaty of Friendship with Soviet Union (18).

Nevertheless, Sadat remained cool to U.S. proposals for increased U.S. military involvement in his own armed forces (18).

Then the unexpected, Sadat began making peaceful overtures toward Israel. Simultaneously, he began signaling a willingness to accommodate Islamic fundamentalists who were demanding a greater role in the Egyptian government. These events and poli cies upset Saudi Arabia and U.S. planners, albeit for different reasons.

Sadat would soon be targeted for assassination.

The CIA has a history of forming alliances with terrorists, Nazis, dictators, and the like. In some instances, the CIA is playing the “Great Game” and engaging the Hegelian dialectic. That is, it creates entities that threaten the US, in order to strengthen the hand of rightwing Republican administrations who then promise to de stroy the threat. In some instances, as was the case with Iraq and Iran in the late 1980s, and Libya, during the 1970s, the CIA pro vided resources so that these nations would be better equipped so as to encourage them to attack each other.

In the 1970s, the terrorist government of Libya was targeted— but not for overthrow, but as an instrument of power to be wielded by the unseen hand of the CIA.

CIA agent, Edwin Wilson was put in charge of the Libya mission (19).

Like the Mafia, no one ever really ever leaves the CIA. Edwin P. Wilson who “left” the Brotherhood in 1971, continued to run high level operations until the 1980s and this included providing weapons, funds, and strategic information to Libya when it was illegal to do so. Although illegal, the Libyan operation had the bless ing of the CIA, and Wilson met frequently with two of the agency’s top executives while running this and other illegal CIA programs: Thomas G. Clines, the director of training for clandestine services, and Theodore G. Shackley, the No. 2 man in the espionage branch (19,20). Wilson and Shackley also worked together in the planning and implementation of the failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba.

In 1977, Edwin P. Wilson, working under the auspices and with the approval of the CIA, sold Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddaffi, over 20 tons (42,000 pounds) of C4, an extremely concentrated but powerful explosive. C4 is perfect for terrorist operations, including the bombing of schools, hospitals, government buildings and the downing of commercial airlines.

Wilson also provided Libya with “secret CIA cables from the Far East, NSA computer procedures for detecting submarines and missiles, assassination devices from CIA suppliers, and exotic secret weapons from the Navy and CIA testing base at China Lake in California. Wilson clandestinely exported to Libya all the com ponents (including specially developed exploding plastics from the CIA) for manufacturing terrorist bombs disguised as ashtrays and other innocent looking objects” (20).

Other CIA agents also took an active role in the Libya mission.

“Mulcahy” a specialist in secret communications technology supervised the smuggling of electronic and military equipment into Libya (20).

“Dubberstein” worked for the Pentagon and specialized in compiling the daily military intelligence summary for the Secre tary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Dubberstein” provided Libya with this data including the “ultra secret Single Inte grated Operational Plan” for nuclear war (20).

Of course, this was all illegal, particularly so as this infor mation and these weapons posed a danger to our allies and our national security. Libya was not only a sponsor of “terrorism,” but was aligned with the Sovet Union.

It is precisely because Libya was a sponsor of terrorism that the CIA covertly sold weapons of mass destruction to this nation. The CIA fully expected Libya to engage in terrorist attacks against Western targets as well as against Egypt which was on the verge of signing a peace treaty with Israel.

Based on the evidence which was revealed at his trial, the CIA, through Wilson, paid one million dollars to have Sadat assassinated. A CIA agent, “Villaverde who had served the CIA as a saboteur in Cuba, was recruited by Wilson as a hired gun and prom ised a million dollars” for the “assassination” in Egypt (20).

Sadat who had boldly visited Israel in 1977, then signed the 1978 Camp David Accords with Israel, and then a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, was assassinated while observing a military parade on October 6, 1981.

Immediately following the assassination of Sadat, a U.S. carrier battle group, including the 552nd Airborne Warning and Con trol Wing, and the Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group were ordered to take up positions north of Egypt and to the east corner of Libya. These massive forces were deployed because of the “possibility of Libyan involvement,” and were thus set to strike and invade Libya in order to prevent any further aggression against Egypt (21).

That myth was quickly dispelled. However, in consequence, U.S. forces came to be permanently deployed in Egypt, beginning immediately following the Sadat assassination in 1981. Since then, every year around October, Egyptian forces join with and become part of the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. These are multi nation coordinated exercises for infantry, airborne, artillery, and armored forces. These annual exercises have been named, Opera tion “Bright Star.”

U.S. military forces were not only situated near Egypt when Sadat was assassinated, but Operation “Bright Star” was just about to get under way off the coast of Egypt, when terrorists struck the U.S. on 9/11/2001. U.S. and British forces were conveniently in place when President Bush ordered the attack on the Taliban government of Afghanistan.


That the assassination of Egyptian President Sadat was the result of a well organized conspiracy, is beyond dispute. Sadat was seated at the front of a virtually unguarded podium. Many of those in his security detail, including his plainclothes U.S. trained security guards had mysteriously been dismissed for the day. In fact, he was provided almost no protection, which initself was extremely unusual (22).

His four attackers were thus able to approach Sadat without being challenged. Moreover, for reasons that are unknown, Sadat, and only Sadat, stood up as his attackers approached, thus making him an easy target. Speculation is that he was instructed to stand up by those sitting near him.

Although we are told that he was assassinated because his attackers wished to establish an Islamic state, the gun fire was concentrated only on Sadat (22). Although vicepresident Hosni Mubarak and many other top army officers and diplomats, sat to Sadat’s left, to his right, and behind him, thus making them easy targets, they were spared injury, which is surprising if the attackers wished to overthrow the government. If they had really aspired to establish an Islamic state, then why didn’t they kill all the top poli ticians and military men seated around President Sadat?

In fact, by killing Sadat, and then sparing Hosni Mubarak and the others, the assassins actually hindered their supposed extremist Islamic and anti-Western cause. Hosni Mubarak, who be came president, was far more pro-western than the more independent-minded Sadat (18). Whereas Sadat was more accommodating, Murabak immediately began a massive campaign of retaliation against Islamic fundamentalists which included the arrest of over 10,000 clerics and students (22).

As noted, the CIA paid at least 1 million dollars for an assassination that was to take place in Egypt (20). Who else, how many other groups were also paid, we do not know.

What we do know is that the terrorist organization, Islamic Jihad group, claimed responsibility (22) and that this group is linked to Saudi Arabia and bin Laden (23). Several of the so called masterminds of the plot, Nabil Soliman and Ayman alZawahiri, are members of Islamic Jihad, and Ayman al-Zawahiri is also a member of al-Qaeda.

Islamic Jihad’s specialty is assassination.

Islamic Jihad, however, is in actuality, al-Qaeda (23). In deed, some, such as the CIA and U.S. State Department, claim that the leader of Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri is Osama bin Laden’s chief lieutenant. Others, such Osama bin Laden’s handpicked biographer, Hamid Mir, claim that Ayman alZawahiri is actually the leader of alQaeda, whereas Osama is just a “front man” (24)—an issue we will explore in detail in chapter 13.

Nevertheless, regardless of which position we accept, it is beyond dispute that Osama and Ayman alZawahiri, work closely together and that alZawahiri is one of the chief strategist for al Qaeda.

What is in dispute, is the possibility that al Zawahiri may have also worked for the CIA—which may also explain why he was able to visit the United States several times where he openly raised funds as recently as 1995 (25). An undercover FBI infor mant, linked to the CIA, in fact, made the arrangement for al Zawahiri to visit (see chapter 11).

Osama bin Laden is also linked to the CIA, and he is be lieved to have first begun working with this intelligence organiza tion in 1978 or 1979 (26). Presumably Osama was still in the employee of the CIA in 1981, when Sadat was assassinated. The CIA, along with the Saudi royal family, were providing Osama and his nascent terrorist organization with millions of dollars in funds, and Saudi Arabia was covertly supporting terrorist groups whose mis sion was to overthrow Sadat (7,15,27).

Nabil Soliman, one of those involved in the assassination, left Egypt after Sadat was killed and lived in Saudi Arabia (28). Nabil then moved to Yemen in 1988 and then to the United States in 1992 where he lived unmolested for almost 10 years (28). On July 12, 2002, he was extradited from the United States to Egypt (28).

Ayman alZawahiri was jailed after the assassination, but was then released! He too traveled to Saudi Arabia, and then to Af ghanistan where he fought with the Saudi and CIAbacked mujahideen.

We are told that Sadat was assassinated because Islamic Jihad (alQaeda) wished to usher in a pure Islamic state in Egypt, and because Sadat had made peace with Israel (22). In part, that may have been the motives of at least some of the plotters.

However, the result of the assassination, was to remove an independently minded leader who had ushered in Islamic law and who was making overtures to Islamic fundamentalists and offering them a role in his government.

For example, in 1981, Sadat declared that the Shari’a, that is, orthodox, Sunni, Islamic law (29), would be the basis of Egyp tian law. Egyptian law would become Shari’a (18). Sadat was in fact an extremely devout Sunni Muslim. His forehead was marked with the permanent bruise of those who bow their heads to the ground and pray five times a day (18). Indeed, there was a fear, among some Western leaders, that because of Sadat, Islamic fundamentalism would mushroom out of control, and that Egypt was in danger of being a radicalized Islamic nation, similar to Iran.

The assassination of Sadat did not help the Islamic cause but resulted in a massive and brutal crackdown on Islamic fundamen talism. Over 10,000 Islamic leaders were eventually jailed.

The assassination also resulted in the regular deployment of U.S. forces in Egypt, as well as the installation of a prowestern government in Sadat’s place—a government that is so friendly to the U.S. that it receives massive military and economic aid from the United States, the OECD countries and the World Bank— over $52 billion from the U.S. alone (30) —massive financial and mili tary aid that was not available in the 1970s. This aid, of course, makes Egypt that much more dependent on the U.S. Indeed, since Sadat’s death, Egyptian society has been increasingly shaped by Western hands and the Western strings attached to foreign aid (30). Hence, the consequences of killing Sadat were completely oppo site to the ideas Islamic Jihad and Osama bin Laden espouse— which can only make us wonder as to what may have been the real agenda.

To answer that question, we need only ask: who benefits? Answer: The U.S. and Wall Streets merchants of death.

Likewise, we are told that one of the reasons for the 9/11 attack on America, was to further Islamic ideals and to remove western influences and to drive Western military forces from the Islamic states (31).

Instead, the 9/11/2001 assault on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, resulted a devastating attack on the Islamic funda mentalist rulers of Afghanistan, and the permanent installation of the U.S. military and a prowestern government in its place.

If we dare to assume that the planners of 9/11 and the Sadat assassination, also considered the likely consequences of their acts, one would have to conclude, that the purpose of both 9/11 and the assassination of Sadat in 1981, was to serve western and not Is lamic interests, and in this regard, we note that Osama bin Laden had began working with the CIA since at least 1979 or 1978.

«- Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | View All | Next -»

Be the first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.