This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
of Afghanistan. The United States was not only attacked with terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September of 2001, not long after the United States was subject to terrorist attacks using anthrax sent in envelopes to a number of people. Both were terrorist attacks but they were different, delivered differently although at the same time. While the September 11th attacks were used to invade and occupy Afghanistan and is now being used for military actions in Pakistan with the claim that Al Queda left Afghanistan and is now in Pakistan, the anthrax attacks were later used in to invade Iraq, with the claim that the Iraq government had a number of weapons of mass destruction programs, including an anthrax weapons of mass destruction program that threatened other countries and an intimation particularly by foreign governments that Iraq¶s program may have been responsible for the US anthrax attacks, with the anthrax case at that point not having been resolved. These two incidents were not the only incidents that threatened the United States in late 2001. The United States was also threatened with the ³shoe bomber Reid´ who was found to be in the process of detonating an explosive and stopped. The incident with Reid, an attempted terrorist attack looks very like the attempted terrorist attack against the U.S. that occurred at Christmas of 2009, when a Nigerian man was in the process of detonating an explosive on a Detroit bound flight, when he was stopped. The Nigerian man was found to have ties to Al Queda in Yemen, which has resulted in a stepped up increase in US and other nation¶s military aid to Yemen, which has heretofore not been experiencing Al Queda attacks but in the very same spots as where Al Queda has claimed that it is now active, there have been separatist and regional conflict. This is very like what occurred in Afghanistan. The Taliban had been active as militias attacking Afghanis starting in 1993. At that time they were the latest regional militia often ascribed as ³tribal´ in identity, and they did not claim to be Islamicist fighters initially at all, but claimed to be regional and tribal as their reasons for attacking. It was not until years later that they started oppressing the Afghans in the name of religion and claiming that they were ³Islamic fighters´ rather than tribal militias. The terrorist attacks in the United States were not the only terrorist attacks that were connected to a worldwide ³war on terror´ and Al Queda that had connections to earlier groups that had not been affiliated with or identified as Al Queda, that were also involved in separatist militia attacks before. In October 2002, a bombing occurred on the Indonesian island of Bali that targeted foreigners and Australians. The bombing was ascribed to both ³Jemaah Islamiyah´ known as JI and Al Queda both, although Jemaah Islamiya had been attacking Indonesians in various parts of Indonesian for years with no connections to any group called Al Queda, which in fact was never heard of before 1997. Jemaah Islamiya had been connected to secessionist militia actions and attacks in Indonesia that had been used to separate parts of Indonesia from the nation of Indonesia in similar separatist actions as have been occurring in Yemen and elsewhere. Australian soldiers had been involved in Indonesia with the separatist actions of El Timor and had been deported and banned by the Indonesian government from being on Indonesian soil as Australian soldiers. With the Bali bombing attacking Australians in large numbers it served the purpose of getting Australian soldiers back in Indonesia, fighting in conflicts that heretofore had been classified as separatist, very like what is occurring in Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere as a result of the terrorist attacks.
One of the primary outcomes of the September 11, 2001 attacks was the use of the attacks to militarily invade and occupy foreign countries and become involved in funding, backing and arming what were often ongoing conflicts that were serving to destroy the existing nations. The ³war on terror´ designation was not the only reason given why all of a sudden foreign militaries in aggregated multinational coalitions such as the coalition of the willing in Iraq or international coalitions such as NATO and UN peacekeepers or regional coalitions such as the African Union, Eucorps, and Australian involved INTERFET, should start invading sovereign nations and occupying them with multinational forces. The other reason that occurred at the same time as the September 11, 2001 attacks although not specifically related, was the issue of weapons of mass destruction. The attacks on September 11, 2001 led to an invasion of Afghanistan. The anthrax attacks in late 2001 facilitated an attack on Iraq with the primary reason given as to why Iraq was invaded and occupied was their weapons of mass destruction programs. Two other nations are now being threatened by a number of countries with international action, possibly including invasion given their weapons of mass destruction, primarily nuclear weapons of mass destruction programs. These nations are Iran and North Korea. This means that both the ³international war against Islamicist terrorism and weapons of mass destruction programs are being used interchangeably as reasons why sovereign nations should be militarily invaded and occupied. And it appears that the primary reason for the ³war on terrorism´ for use is to invade and occupy foreign countries militarily and that the weapons of mass destruction programs and possibility of threat is also being used as a reason to militarily invade and occupy foreign countries. Terrorist attacks have occurred historically in all different countries and for numerous different reasons. Historically, they have been considered crimes if related to specific individuals as has been the case with the terrorist bombings that have occurred. They have not been used as a reason to go to war with a country unless the terrorist bombings were related to actions by a foreign government. This has not been the case with the terrorist attacks and threats and the actions of the governments of Afghanistan, Indonesia and Yemen, though they are being treated in that way. As well, nations such as Iraq have historically had weapons of mass destruction programs in the past and were not before this period militarily invaded and occupied as a nation because of these programs and a possible threat related to it. As well there are significant questions involving the nations of Iran and North Korea and their nuclear weapons programs which have both been supplied by the same international suppliers who are also connected to nuclear weapons programs in Libya and Pakistan. The nations of North Korea and Iran have been increasingly supplied with nuclear materials that could be used for weapons of mass destruction programs since 2001. The suppliers of these materials have been predominantly German companies. And the German government has done nothing to either stop it or account for it. A major question regarding the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea is who armed North Korea with the nuclear material and why did they arm North Korea, Iran and Libya with nuclear weapons material that was useable for nuclear weapons? It appears to set up North Korea and Iran for future conflict and set up the United States for conflict with North Korea and Iran using Iran and North Korea¶s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programs to do it. On October 4, 2003, The German ship BBC China departed from Dubai and was headed for Libya, with parts for Libya¶s nuclear program. The CIA alerted German and Italian authorities that this ship was bound for Libya with parts for a Libyan nuclear program. The US government contacted the BBC China ship¶s owner, the German company BBC
Chartering and Logistic GmbH and asked for help blocking the shipment, which was diverted to Italy. The suppliers included the Japanese company Mitutoyo, who supplied machinery at nuclear related sites in Libya and discovered during inspections in December 2003 and January 2004 by the International Atomic Energy Agency which was also linked to this international nuclear trafficking network of centrifuge parts. This was not the first time a German connected company was found shipping nuclear technology to North Korea. It was reported that a small annealing furnace had been exported to North Korea from Leybold in 1987. It was also reported that Leybold technicians had been observed in North Korea in 1989 and a company official was in the country in 1990. There have been suggestions that firms in Japan and Europe sold North Korea materials and equipment related to a gas centrifuge program during 1988-1989. In April, 2003, Hans Werner Truppel who worked for Jacob Bek Gmbh, a subsidiary of Thyssen Krupp, was found transporting aluminum piping for a nuclear centrifuge program to North Korea when the ship was diverted nine days after leaving Hamburg. The same month it was reported that the Japanese company, Meishin, shipped frequency converters to Thailand to be forwarded to North Korea. Devices of this kind are applicable to stabilize the flow of electric current to centrifuges. (1) The issue of the threat of nuclear weapons is not the only issue that is being raised that is being used to portray the nation of North Korea as a threat to other nations. It appears that an issue involving the reported abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea is also being used to set up the US in possible confrontation with North Korea. In 2008, at the G-8 summit hosted by Japan, the prime minister of Japan thrust into US president George Bush¶s hands the biography of a reported abductee from Japan by North Korea decades ago. This forced President Bush to comment on this reported Japanese abductee as if it were an issue that directly involved the United States and that the US should be involved in. While this book was thrust deliberately into the hands of President Bush for him to comment on as the US president, none of the other six foreign national leaders at the summit had this book thrust in their hands right before addressing the gathering. Nor did any Japanese government officials themselves comment on this abduction at the same meeting, after forcing the United States to address the issue. The disappearance of those connected with Japan, occurred three decades ago, from 1977 to 1983. However, the disappearance of these people was given little attention in Japan until just the past few years. A number of the people who were claimed to be abductees instead appeared to be in North Korea voluntarily, including members of a group of Japanese including North Korea based Japanese terrorists, after a 1970 hijacking of a Japan airlines, and an American Charles Robert Jenkins, who was a defector from the United States Army who fled to North Korea where he met and married another reported abductee, Japanese citizen Hitomi Soga. On September 11, 2004, Jenkins reported to the army base in Camp Zama, Japan and served a light sentence after being found guilty of desertion and aiding the enemy and was discharged dishonorably. In December of 2004, Japan changed it¶s post World War Two Constitution that limited Japanese military actions to self defense, The changes allowed for Japanese offensive military action elsewhere as part of a coalition or in alliance with other nations. This occurred in December of 2004. A week later, Japan signed a new defense treaty with the United States. On October 29, 2005, the ³U.S. ± Japan Alliance Transformation Realignment for the Future´ agreement was signed. This called for military integration between US and Japanese forces and
bilateral cooperation including in policy coordination, which gives Japan a say in the disposition and use of US forces . This realignment involves not just defensive action regarding Japan itself which was the US¶s only military reason for being in Japan, but possible offensive action against not only North Korea but in Asia overall. The alliance realignment transformation occurred just months after official defense papers in Tokyo for the first time explicitly pointed to China as a ³threat´. And it has been reported that Japan considers China a ³threat that needs to be ³contained´. (2) The connections between Germany and Japan being involved in possibly setting up the US for conflict in North Korea is seen in connections seen between these nations and what resulted in the U.S. being involved militarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. It appears that the US and other countries were possibly set up for military action in these two countries as well. AFGHANISTAN The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center were committed by a number of terrorists who had connections not to Afghanistan, but to Germany. CIA officials said that as long as a year before the September 11, 2001 attacks they had been urging German officials to take on Al Queda¶s Hamburg network. One of the primary people that the US government officials were referring to was Darkanzali, who they suspected of being Bin Laden¶s ³commissioner´ and who had been found involved in handling the banking and financing in Germany of Al Queda attacks elsewhere. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft called Hamburg the terrorists ³central base of operations.´ (3) As well as financing, there were direct links between Germany and those connected with hijacking and piloting the planes used in the attacks on September 11th. Three of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001 and those claimed to be the ringleaders lived in Hamburg, Germany. They were Mohamed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah. Shehhi, who was from the United Arab Emirates, had entered Germany as a student some years earlier on a German military scholarship. In the months before the attacks there were not only reports of these hijackers traveling between the US and Germany, but also being in contact with others in Germany during this period. Two of those who roomed with the hijackers , Mounir al-Motassadek and Abdelghani Mzoudi were arrested, charged and convicted by the German government as being directly connected to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Al Motassadek, operated a bank account under the hijacker Shehhi¶s name, which was used to fund flight lessons in America and handled funds for the living expenses of three of the hijackers when they lived in the U.S.. Mzoudi was found to have transferred money to pay for flying lessons for one of the September 11th hijackers. In February 2004, with no new trial and no new evidence to refute what had been found of his involvement, a German court acquitted Mzoudi, and released him on his own recognizance. In March, 2004, a German appeals court threw out Al Motassadek¶s conviction, again with no new trial and no new evidence. Al Motassadek was released from prison in April 2004. The hijacker Shehhi was not the only suspect connected to the September 11, 2001 with ties to the German military.Bahaji, a German citizen who had served in the German military lived with Atta and Binalshibh in Marienstrasse. Bahaja took care of the day to day business. He signed the lease and the rent was paid out of his account. (4) All the evidence linking the Hamburg cell of hijackers to Afghanistan was provided to the U.S. government by the German government and appeared to be based on possible visa and
passport records of travel, though it was reported that three of the hijackers claimed to have lost their passports which expunged any records of previous travel, in order to have them reissued by the German government, before travel to the United States. (5) As well, Thomas H Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, two members of the 9/11 commission, noted in their book ³Without Precedent The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission´, although German government officials were scheduled to testify to the 9/11 Commission about their findings, they never showed up, nor did they give any explanation as to why they didn¶t show up as they stated they would and were scheduled to do for the 9/11 Commission hearings. The Iraq invasion also had connections to Germany and the German government. IRAQ The invasion of Iraq was based on intelligence that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program. This intelligence about Iraq¶s weapons of mass destruction program started to be disseminated and publicly spoken and written on in the spring of 2002, after the initial phase of the international military coalition into Afghanistan had been established. The intelligence claiming that Iraq had mobile biological weapons of mass destruction programs came from Germany¶s intelligence service. This information came from an Iraqi scientist who defected to Germany, who had the code name of ³Curveball´ who, it was reported, was working with German intelligence. These claims were shared with the Bush administration, but it was later reported in a Presidential Commission Report published in 2005, that the CIA did not gain access to ³Curveball´ to validate the intelligence provided by German intelligence, until March of 2004 when they were able to interview him and at that point, categorically repudiate his story. It was also later learned that this Iraqi defector was not even in Iraq in the time period pertaining to his claims about Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories. (6) One of the claims of Curveball was that Iraq had a biological weapons program that included anthrax, the biological weapon that had been used in the terrorist attack against the United States soon after the September 11th attacks. At the same time that Germany was providing the US government with intelligence that indicated that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program, Germany was also arming Iraq with weapons just prior to the coalition of the willing invading Iraq because of the reported threat of weapons of mass destruction. In late 2002, months before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the UN was given information about Iraq¶s weapons program, that showed that German companies were primary suppliers of Iraq¶s weapons equipment and technology. It was reported that more than half of the 80 companies on the list were from German companies. In November of 2002, after the US Congress had already voted to allow the US to invade Iraq, an article in the government run newspaper, Iraq Daily stated, ³Iraqi-German relations have witnessed a notable improvement after the firm positive stand of Germany in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq by the U.S.. Accordingly, President Hussein has ordered to give priority to German companies to enter the Iraqi market.´ (7) Although it was reported that the planning for the Iraq war was done by the US government, in fact as reported by the U.S. Central Command commander, Tommy Franks in his autobiography, the planning for the Iraq invasion and war was done outside the U.S., in Germany and excluded US military personnel who are supposed to be legally included in all military
planning for U.S. troops. Franks wrote in his autobiography, that on March 21, 2002 around the same time that reports about Iraq¶s weapons of mass destruction program began surfacing, and the international ground forces had been established in Afghanistan, he was in Germany at the NATO Warrior Prep Center discussing the shape and scope of a possible military operation to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. NATO is a multinational entity and Franks did not note why he as a regional commander in the United States military was in Germany discussing plans for an Iraq invasion and takeover. The U.S. Central Command Regional Command, of which Franks was the head, is not located in Germany, but in Tampa, Florida, and General Franks did not disclose what he as the CENTCOM general was doing discussing any plans for massive US involvement militarily in Iraq in Germany and not the U.S. The planning for the Iraq invasion as reported by Franks, included he and a few other U.S. military personnel, none of whom were those who are legally required to be involved in military planning for actions involving the US military; including the President of the United States, the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and key Pentagon officials. None of these people were present with General Franks in Germany at this planning session for the Iraq invasion. As well, Franks reports that he required those few other US military personnel at the planning session in Germany to discuss it with no one else, although some were junior level personnel serving under the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and are supposed to be reporting directly to them, as the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff of the different military services are required to be included in all military planning. According to Franks, he told the junior Chiefs of Staff personnel: ³One last point. What we discussed today goes no further than the people in this room. This command does not leak«.. I could see that my message had registered.´ (8) The reasons for the US being militarily involved in Afghanistan, to find Osama Bin Laden, and Al Queda members who were reported by the German government to be connected to those directly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks were not captured or found in Afghanistan. Instead it is reported that they have moved on to Pakistan, where the US is also currently becoming involved militarily. The reason given for the United States being at war in Iraq was because of intelligence that was provided to the U.S. governments by foreign governments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and an active program intent on targeting Europe and the U.S. It was found after the invasion of Iraq, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Japan and Germany have been making large investments in Iraq for it¶s oil and in the Central Asian states, including Turkmenistan just north of Afghanistan for their gas. Japan has a number of gas deals with the government of Turkmenistan and pipeline deals for pipelines transporting the gas from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, then through Pakistan for passage from Pakistan to Japan. Afghanistan and Iraq are only two countries that show a pattern of large foreign investment by Japan and Germany, at the same time or after conflict, and a pattern as well of continuing foreign multinational military occupation in these areas, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and a number of other countries including Indonesia and the former Yugoslavia. Both have been increasingly involved in a southern corridor of what used to be the USSR where there has been almost constant militia conflict since their breakaway status from the USSR, which helped precipitate the destruction of the USSR. Germany has formed many gas and oil deals with
nations in the Caucasus states in the region and also now has a 49% stake in the Russian national gas and oil consortium Gazprom. As well, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have led to a foreign military presence in the U.S. as a result, and an increased militarization of Germany and Japan as active militaries engaged in invading and occupying other countries militarily. Japan and Germany are also working towards ³increasing integration´ with other country¶s militaries. Germany has been using Europe based NATO and Eucorps to do so. Japan pursued and pressed for a new security agreement with the U.S. that was signed in 2005 that outlined increased ³integration´ of US and Japanese military forces and actions´ and ³joint decisionmaking´ for offensive action in the rest of Asia. The September 11, 2001 attacks didn¶t result in a focus on a thorough criminal investigation of those responsible for the terrorist attacks, including those in Hamburg, who were stated to be directly connected to the attacks. Instead the September 11, 2001 attacks were used as a pretext for military operations in other parts of the world, starting with Afghanistan. The day after the September 11th attacks, on September 12, 2001, NATO declared that the attacks on the United States could be considered a military attack on the United States, thus thrusting the terrorist attacks into the context of a military attack, requiring a military response, before there had been any time for an adequate criminal investigation. NATO¶s nineteen member alliance voted to invoke the mutual defense language in article 5, it¶s charter regarding the attack on the United States as an attack on all NATO member states. As a response to the September 11th attacks, the European nations of NATO began moving militarily into a number of countries, including the United States itself. NATO began flying NATO military flights over the US for the next six months. NATO also used the September 11th attacks to begin moving NATO foreign military commanders into the U.S. Although before this period, NATO had primarily been a static defense force of US forces in Europe to protect against attacks by the Soviet Union during the Cold War; after the September 11th attacks and particularly after 2003, NATO became an offensive military force, engaged worldwide as a result of the ³war on terrorism´. In 2003, NATO voted to shift decisionmaking and control for NATO military decisions from the 17 European nations and the US and Canada which comprised NATO to the European Union, in the Berlin Agreement. This resulted in both the U.S. and Canada, neither of which belongs to the EU, with no decisionmaking capacity for NATO military actions. For the nations of Europe, it meant military actions for their national militaries in NATO not being directly controlled by their national governments. Although the U.S. no longer has any decisionmaking capacity in NATO, the U.S. is both funding NATO and supplying US military personnel for NATO missions. As of 2003, NATO formed the Allied Command Transformation in the U.S., headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, near the U.S. Joint Forces Command, with which it is increasingly connected. On September 9, 2009, the former chief of the French Air Force, Stephane Abrial, took over the U.S. ACT NATO command, resulting in foreign military control of a foreign military organization headquartered in the U.S., that has no decisionmaking control by the U.S. NATO ACT headquarters has increasing numbers of foreign military commanders moving into the Norfolk, Virginia base, leading one to question why the United States is being militarily occupied by foreign military officers in an organization where the US no longer has any decisionmaking capacity. In a visit to the United States in 2006, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Germany primarily saw their relationship with the United States as being one connected to NATO. During that trip as in most trips that the German government has made to the U.S. and
other countries, Chancellor Merkel urged the U.S. to issue harsh sanctions against Iran for their nuclear weapons program that German companies had primarily supplied. Merkel also mentioned the threat of not only North Korea but China and reiterated Germany¶s relationship and connections to the United States in regard to Iran, North Korea and China. Germany¶s foreign policy often involves traveling to other countries and urging them to ³get tough´ on other countries, as is Japan¶s foreign policy. Although neither Germany nor Japan by themselves are willing to threaten other countries, their primary and ³matching´ foreign policy actions appear to be pressuring, exhorting and setting up other countries to engage in conflict with other nations as proxies for Japan and Germany. In this visit, Merkel intimated that the only relationship Germany had with the U.S. was one as ³military allies´ with the U.S. through NATO, and in regard to possible upcoming conflict in Iran, North Korea and China, that it appears that the U.S. is being set up for. Also at question is what the German government wants to use NATO for. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, in February of 2002, at a global security conference, a German legislator asked, ³Our American friends to bear in mind that the core of the international coalition against terrorism is NATO. It can¶t be that you act on your own and we trot along afterwards.´ (9) Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed his government¶s support ³without reservation´ and said Germany¶s solidarity with the United States was ³unlimited´. ³Four days after the United State¶s bombardment of Afghanistan began, Schroeder spoke to the parliament in defense of sending troops to join the U.S. war. ³The willingness to provide security through the military is an important declaration for Germany¶s allies,´ he said. It ³means a new self conception of German foreign policy« Germany needs to show a new international responsibility.´ He even parroted some of President Bush¶s language, ³We did not want this conflict « But we will take on this battle against terrorism ± and we will win it.´ (10) Just four short days after the attacks, members in the German government had already noted a ³new ³self conception of German foreign policy´. However, as noted, that new conception of German foreign policy was ³security through the military´. Germany was not the only nation that considered the attacks on September 11, 2001 as the triggering event for a radical restructuring of their national foreign policy. Right after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi launched a campaign within the Japanese parliament for a new law allowing Japanese military participation in the U.S. war. The move was strongly opposed by Japan¶s large peace constituency, who argued that it violated the Japanese constitution¶s rejection of war as a national right and its ban on sending Japanese Self Defense forces abroad. The new legislation allowed Koizumi to send a fleet of two destroyers and a supply ship carrying four helicopters and 700 troops to the Indian Ocean to carry out noncombat support for the war.´ The September 11, 2001 attacks were just the start of continued work by the Japanese government to gut article 9 in Japan¶s post war constitution that foreswore Japanese military involvement in any conflict other than for purposes of self defense. In 2004, the Japanese government gutted article 9 in the Japanese constitution, stating that Japan could be involved in offensive military action in other countries for other than self defense purposes as long as it was part of a military coalition. It appears possible that Germany and Japan are using the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as a pretext to drop their post World War Two pacifist stances, using their involvement with other nations in the post September 11, 2001 international military coalition against terrorism as
means to offensively both invade and occupy other countries militarily. It appears that the U.S. is also one of those countries that was first attacked and is now being militarily occupied by foreign military forces that are not under their command.
SOURCES: (1)URL: http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/nbm/nuclear-black-market-dossier-anet-assesment/nuclear-black-markets-other-countries-and-ne/ (2) ³As China rises, US taps Japan as key Asia ally´ - Christian Science Monitor ± March 21, 2005 (3)³Inside 9/11 ± What Really Happened´ ± from Der Speigel, Published by St Martin¶s Press, New York, 2001 pg: 188 (4) INSIDE 9/11 ± What Really Happened ± from Der Speigel, Published by St Martin¶s Press ´ published 2001, ± Page 199 (5)³Inside 9/11 ± What Really Happened´ ± from Der Speigel, Published by St Martin¶s Press, New York, 2001 pg: 9 (6)http://www/guardian.com.uk/world/2005/apr/01/iraq.usa (7)³Treachery ± How America¶s Friends and Foes are secretly arming our enemies´ Pg 41 - Bill Gertz (8)³American Soldier´ Pg 382 ± General Tommy Franks (9) ³BEFORE and AFTER ± U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND THE SEPTEMBER 11TH CRISIS´ By Phyllis Bennis ±published in 2003 by Olive Branch Press an imprint of Publishing Group Inc. New York - Page 152. (10) IBID page 114
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.