Re: London previously said it played no role...

On Feb 22, 11:46 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-02-22, Garry Denke <GarryDe...@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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Lie about the one, Lie about the other.

Embarrassed Miliband admits two...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/22/ciarendition.foreignpolicy1

They knew about both...

G-D
.