Re: London previously said it played no role...
- From: Whiskers <catwheezel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:46:06 +0000
On 2008-02-22, Garry Denke <GarryDenke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:18 am, Peter Alaca <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Garry Denke wrote: on, 22/02/2008 16:08:
Fayed says UK royals wanted to "get rid of" Diana
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAL1851948820080218
British intel agency denies killing Princess Diana
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-02-20-diana-inquest-mi6_N.htm
CIA confirms rendition flights to British island
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23272837
London previously said it played no role...
G-D
*** off
So THAT's what they told DI & Dodi.
Hey thanks Peter,
DI
What has a CIA ***-up leading to a Diplomatic Incident, got to do with a
grieving father's irrational accusations about the circumstances of his
son's death? What has any of that to do with sci.archaeology?
(OK, I'll concede that the line between police detectives, criminal
forensics, and archaeologists, isn't clear-cut).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: London previously said it played no role...
- From: Garry Denke
- Re: London previously said it played no role...
- References:
- London previously said it played no role...
- From: Garry Denke
- Re: London previously said it played no role...
- From: Peter Alaca
- Re: London previously said it played no role...
- From: Garry Denke
- London previously said it played no role...
- Prev by Date: Re: London previously said it played no role...
- Next by Date: Re: London previously said it played no role...
- Previous by thread: Re: London previously said it played no role...
- Next by thread: Re: London previously said it played no role...
- Index(es):