deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6488|Connecticut

Bertster7 wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I can assure you I was not in that region under the Bush administration. I dont like him any more than you do ( less prob) but I hate terrorists and I want them all dead. Simple.
Good for you. If only more Americans would adopt that attitude, rather than the traditional - the president is always right and anyone who says otherwise is an unpatriotic commie terrorist.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

We are not detaining innocent civilians. We are detaining members of al queda.
If the government were absolutely positive they were members of Al Qaeda I would have no problem with these detention camps. They are not, at least not in the traditional sense. There needs to be some form of trial for these terror suspects, perhaps not as open as normal trials due to the sensitive nature of the offences. The right to fair trial is a vital part of legal systems across the world, the 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to terrorists just as much as anyone else. If you can't prove they are terrorists, to any degree, then they should be presumed innocent and not subjected to the ordeals they face in these camps. If they're found guilty, do what you want with them. Because it is then, and only then, that you can truely call them terrorists.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Do I think we should be in Iraq? Hell no. Never said we should but what I do support is rounding up of every single god damned terrorist piece of waste that wishes us harm and getting rid of them.
Fair enough. But give them a trial first - innocent people don't deserve that sort of shit. I don't think the US should have gone into Iraq either, the situation there was self contained and whilst unpleasant, was nothing like the terrorist breeding ground it is today. I do support the US over Afghanistan, can't have foreign governments saying 'Yeah, we've got terrorists who attacked you here and there's nothing you can do about it' (which was really quite a stupid thing to say to the US), that just takes the piss. Afghanistan was perfectly justified.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

America was founded on the belief that our citizens are prepared to die for their freedom.
You don't think that applies to the Europeans who have done a lot more dying for their freedom than Americans have over the years. Virtually every country is founded on the same doctorine. Other people just tend to go on about it less.

deeznutz1245 wrote:

France on the other hand would be speaking German right now if it were not for us American "idiots" who liberated your cowardly asses on more than one occasion this century.
That's not entirely true. The US didn't do that much in the war in Europe. It was the Russians who really saved the day. The D-Day landings were the biggest part the US played in the war in Europe and until that point they had acted like complete pussies about the whole thing. The only really important part the US played was in getting troops across into Normandy, without them it would have been a much more difficult battle - but still a winable one. I'm sick of Americans saying 'we saved your asses in WWII', because it really isn't true, the US helped out, quite a lot, but were ultimately non-essential. Had Hitler stuck to his non-aggression pact with Stalin the west would really have been fucked - and you might well have been talking Russian/German by now. If you look up the battles of WWII, you will see the US played a part in only a very few of them. I cannot recall any campaigns fought by the US alone in Europe in WWII. They were all fought by the British and the US, or by the British and the Canadians, or by the Russians. The French and Polish helped out too. The major role of the US in Europe was for the D-Day landings. That's it. I know their role has been massively overplayed in numerous US films, but that's not what quite happened, they present a very biased view.

The US did do the bulk of the work in the Pacific though - I'll certainly give them that.

I do agree with you on quite a few points. I just don't particularly like the way you have put them across. You seem to think Afghanistan was a good idea, I agree. You think Iraq was a bad idea, I agree. You think detaining terrorists in these CIA detention camps is a good idea, I don't disagree - but we do differ in our definition of what counts as a terrorist for purposes of detaining them and I believe some form of trial is the only way to do this.
I thank you for your intelligent response unlike some of the others I have received (and given...lol). Just for the record though my bit that you quoted about Americans dying for their freedom was not a shot at Europeans by any means at all. It was a response to someone who said that I was an idiot for being in the Marines and contributing towards war. I am a vet and I felt it was disrespectful. Thats all.
Malloy must go
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6763

Tunacommy wrote:

We are taught in the U.S. from a young age that WE won WWII....it is not until you get a little older that you figure out that it is really only true for the war with Japan.  That was "our" real perceived enemy at that time.  We were happy letting most of Europe fall to Germany and were reluctant to get too involved.  Our main contribution in the war with Germany was industry.  We supplied the western front allies (Brit's) with most of their supplies, as their factories and industry was being bombed out.  I dare say, if Japan had not hit Pearl Harbor, we would have stayed out of WWII all together.  I do believe that without help from the U.S. in terms of supplies....the UK may have fallen to Germany....so give us some credit there;  even though I agree with you that in the overall picture that Germany would have been beat withouth our troop involvement.

Here is another tidbit - we Americans like to claim that we saved France from Germany in WWII....but without France, the U.S. (arguably) might not be here either.  They offered troops, weapons, leadership and supplies in the Revolutionary War with Britan.  We would probably be a British colony without France's help in that war.....something to think about.....
something else to think about: wwII started to liberate poland from occupation. how did the war end? poland being occupied for the next 30 years.

Last edited by BN (2006-09-08 19:22:40)

BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6763

DBBrinson1 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It cannot be won by definition.  War is not a means of preventing terrorism, all the recent terrorism can be traced back to war at it's origin.
It will be won when Al Quaida is no longer attacking and harassing innocent people.
the war on terror is not defined. How can you win a war that is not defined?

what is terror? Terrorism of course but what else does it include?

Why is Robert Mugabe still in power? He rules with terror.

Terrorism has been going on for years and the US did not give a shit. They only give a toss because it happened to them this time, on their soil.

a little heads up on Al Quaida. it is only a name, a word invented to group all terrorists. The press love it. It gives a name to that face. The politicians love it cos they can say "we are taking out Al Quaida" when in all fact they have no idea who the terrorists are.
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6627|USA
i dont believe it...secret prisons??? i bet bush is lying again and this time to create support for the democrat party!!!

Last edited by smtt686 (2006-09-08 19:14:24)

Raptor1
Member
+19|6483
so what, these people held in them are terrible people, and they deserve whatever kind of treatment/ interrogations their getting in these prisons
Ctwo
Member
+7|6456|New Jersey, USA
People just stop.

Trust that there are people like you and me doing everything they can to protect us and our way of life.

Respect these people.
beerface702
Member
+65|6689|las vegas
GOOD

i hope they tortured em nicely

these pricks deserve it. and we need these prison's. who cares if the gov didnt tell us for a while. it was a big DUH anyway. where else do all these captured terrorist go? fuckin county? no!
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6577|SE London

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I disagree.  The US was fighting hard in Europe.  Here's the proof.
http://www.historyshots.com/usarmy/backstory.cfm

Last bit you typed about France isn't entirely true.  True they did contribute, but they made just in time (at the end).  I'll find the proof and post it later.
Well you're wrong then.

Certainly about WWII in Europe. Don't look at the troop numbers, read up on the battles. The US did not participate in many of the major battles. They helped massively with the Normandy landings and also helped with supplies. That's pretty much it. The battle of the Ardenne was about the only other place they got really stuck in (known as the battle of the bulge to most Americans).
Ok Guy, here you go.

Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.
Jan 26, 1942 - First American forces arrive in Great Britain
Aug 17, 1942 - First all-American air attack in Europe.
Jan 27, 1943 - First bombing raid by Americans on Germany (at Wilhelmshaven).
Feb 14-25 - Battle of Kasserine Pass between the U.S. 1st Armored Division and German Panzers in North Africa.
July 9/10 - Allies land in Sicily.
July 22, 1943 - Americans capture Palermo, Sicily
Aug 17, 1943 - American daylight air raids on Regensburg and Schweinfurt in Germany; Allies reach Messina, Sicily
June 6, 1944 - D-Day landings.
June 27, 1944 - U.S. troops liberate Cherbourg.
July 18, 1944 - U.S. troops reach St. Lô.
July 28, 1944 - Soviet troops take Brest-Litovsk. U.S. troops take Coutances.
Aug 20, 1944 - Allies encircle Germans in the Falaise Pocket.
Sept 1-4 - Verdun, Dieppe, Artois, Rouen, Abbeville, Antwerp and Brussels liberated by Allies
Sept 13, 1944 - U.S. troops reach the Siegfried Line
Sept 17, 1944 - Operation Market Garden begins (Allied airborne assault on Holland).
Dec 16-27 - Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes.
Dec 26, 1944 - Patton relieves Bastogne.
Jan 16, 1945 - U.S. 1st and 3rd Armies link up after a month long separation during the Battle of the Bulge.
March 7, 1945 - Allies take Cologne and establish a bridge across the Rhine at Remagen.
April 1, 1945 - U.S. troops encircle Germans in the Ruhr; Allied offensive in North Italy.
April 12, 1945 - Allies liberate Buchenwald and Belsen concentration camps
April 29, 1945 - U.S. 7th Army liberates Dachau.

And this is the Army.  Not included are the major sea battles that occured in the Atlantic against the German Navy and its U-boats, not to mention the contributions of the US shipping precious troops and supplies.

Well. I think if the US hadn't been there then  -yea, y'all would be speaking German or Russian.  To try and minimize the US participation and significance in the European Theater is ridiculous.
Nice research. I'm terribly impressed. You do forget to mention that several of the Allied atacks you mentioned didn't feature any US involvement, such as the battle of Verdun (fought exclusively by French troops). Some of the other Allied attacks you list included minimal numbers of US troops, for example the raid on Dieppe, only 50 US rangers participated to get some combat experience.
The US army's liberating of Dachau is hardly a battle, just a slaughter of concentration camp guards. Nor do the liberation of Buchenwald and Belsen count as battles.
How does the Battle of Kasserine Pass in North Africa, count as US involvement in Europe?

What you've done is take a big list of US involvement in the war and just posted it, with out any real consideration of its relevance. It does look like an impressive list. But half the stuff on it is irrelevant to the war in Europe. The list also fails to point out a huge number of other battles. There is no mention of numerous other allied (not involving US forces) victories on that list and there is no mention of Soviet involvement, such as the capture of Berlin. Once the battle of Normandy was won and Cherbourg had been taken, there was very little need for US troops to have been there. The bulk of the German forces were concentrated on operation Barbarossa in Russia. The Russian offensive is what lost the war for the Nazis, it was their most disasterous campaign. All that was needed was a second front to prevent the full might of the German army from attacking the Soviets (who would quite likely have beaten the Germans on their own).

So it seems the two major involvements of the US army were as I stated earlier, the battle of Normandy and the battle of the Ardenne. They were involved in a number of skirmishes as well and minor battles - but those are the big two.

The vast US naval involvement you speak of I have heard little about, but I can't imagine it to be that crucial in the war, since Hitler could not attack Britain because German naval forces could not overcome the Royal Navy. Britain had naval dominance in most of Europe, certainly around Britain, France and the Netherlands.


DBBrinson1 wrote:

Last bit you typed about France isn't entirely true.  True they did contribute, but they made just in time (at the end).
I do also like your downplaying of France only getting involved in the US war of independence at the end, when that is exactly what the US did throughout WWII.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-08 20:57:35)

Eyeshooter
Member
+3|6453|uh.. good question..
hitler..

killing or torturing..

wouldnt you all just rather peace?..

arent we all citizens of the world..

and who cares wut religion we believe in as long as its still God..

join hand my borthers.. peace is our greatest weapon!

bush is an odd ruler ..
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6577|SE London

Raptor1 wrote:

so what, these people held in them are terrible people, and they deserve whatever kind of treatment/ interrogations their getting in these prisons
Except the ones who have been proven innocent and sent home. I wouldn't appreciate being locked up and tortured for months or years and then being told it was all just a mistake. That's why there needs to be some sort of system for trials - every other western nation manages it. Why should the US be an exception to human rights law? In the UK terror suspects receive a trial, the rules are slightly different, but that's ok, so long as they do get a fair trial.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6577|SE London

Eyeshooter wrote:

hitler..

killing or torturing..

wouldnt you all just rather peace?..

arent we all citizens of the world..

and who cares wut religion we believe in as long as its still God..

join hand my borthers.. peace is our greatest weapon!

bush is an odd ruler ..
I don't believe in God - You got a problem with that?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6577|SE London

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

again you presume that all detainees are COMBATANTS, I'm interested in the innocent people who are detained CIVILIANS I'm sick of saying this - http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0 … tml#whatis

& PS can you not take a joke FFS? iIt's not that we disagree mate ,it's we're talking about different things, all you can go on and on about is combatants and terrorists, while all I've been talking about are those noncombatant/non terrorists you know CIVILIANS? who are being held in these camps - right I can't be arsed anymore with this crap it's the weekend and I'm gonna drink beer.. will pick it up again next week if you would like me to explain it to you again if you can't grasp what I'm taking about i'll use some pictures so you can tell the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist
Sure I agree civilians should not be detained, unless they were up to no good, because then they would be dum dum dum terrorists.......Source for civilian being detained...for no reason whatsoever....... is this your contention??

And no need to talk down to me.  Just explain yourself.
Some of the people who have been detained in these camps have been found to be innocent. The whole system of US justice, along with most other countries in the world, relies upon the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. These suspects have not had any sort of trial. Give them trials before packing them off to secret torture camps. It's not the torture I've got problem with so much as the fact some of the people it is happening to may well be innocent. Trials would at least mean that there is a process for people to try and prove their innocence.

The whole legal system thing boils down to, if you haven't tried them and found them guilty they're not terrorists and should not be detained, unless they are awaiting trial.

But then I'm not accusing the US of randomly pulling people off the street and detaining them in secret CIA camps. Most of the people in these camps are guilty. But some may well be innocent, a system is needed to prevent innocent people from getting tortured. Torture really shouldn't be being carried out on the sort of scale where you need special camps for it either, that's not very nice. A bit of torture, in extreme circumstances, OK - but you've got to draw a line somewhere.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6640|Seattle, WA

Bertster7 wrote:

Some of the people who have been detained in these camps have been found to be innocent. The whole system of US justice, along with most other countries in the world, relies upon the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. These suspects have not had any sort of trial. Give them trials before packing them off to secret torture camps. It's not the torture I've got problem with so much as the fact some of the people it is happening to may well be innocent. Trials would at least mean that there is a process for people to try and prove their innocence.

The whole legal system thing boils down to, if you haven't tried them and found them guilty they're not terrorists and should not be detained, unless they are awaiting trial.

But then I'm not accusing the US of randomly pulling people off the street and detaining them in secret CIA camps. Most of the people in these camps are guilty. But some may well be innocent, a system is needed to prevent innocent people from getting tortured. Torture really shouldn't be being carried out on the sort of scale where you need special camps for it either, that's not very nice. A bit of torture, in extreme circumstances, OK - but you've got to draw a line somewhere.
The problem is that those suspects do not fall under regular U.S. law......secret torture camps??? Source for that? 
Well they are just awaiting trial for a long time....hence why some have been sent to Guantanamo awaiting trial.  They may well be innocent, but you can't just let them go, we don't let suspected murderers go or violent criminals, they are denied bail and held in jail until trial, just like terrorists (albeit a longer wait).  Of course you have to draw a line somewhere, I agree.
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6763

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

secret torture camps??? Source for that?
If he had a source it would not be secret!!

Anyway, they are mostly located in countries where torture is legal or not frowned upon ie Egypt

do a google search rendition flights + Egypt
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6753|Argentina

fadedsteve wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

He lied before, impeach him.  This is worse than someone getting a blow job.
Your insane! THERE WAS SECRET PRISONS UNDER CLINTON TOO ya know!!!!!

These prisons are nothing new, we have been outsourcing our prisoners for over 40 years now!! FYI!

It happend in Vietnam through today, so I dont know what the huge shock is all about. . .
I ain't talking about the prisons.  I'm talking about the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the link between Saddam and 9/11. the WMD's, and he also lied about the prisons.  I never said the prisons are new, but Clinton never said I don't know a shit about this.  How can the president not know these prisons are there?
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6640|Seattle, WA

sergeriver wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

He lied before, impeach him.  This is worse than someone getting a blow job.
Your insane! THERE WAS SECRET PRISONS UNDER CLINTON TOO ya know!!!!!

These prisons are nothing new, we have been outsourcing our prisoners for over 40 years now!! FYI!

It happend in Vietnam through today, so I dont know what the huge shock is all about. . .
I ain't talking about the prisons.  I'm talking about the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the link between Saddam and 9/11. the WMD's, and he also lied about the prisons.  I never said the prisons are new, but Clinton never said I don't know a shit about this.  How can the president not know these prisons are there?
It has less to do with lying and more to do with security, you see if the media and shit goes around trying to find and uncap the secret CIA prisons than that is a blow to the security and function of them......I haven't seen anything but good results from the prisons and if you want to talk about Saddam and Al Qaeda you are in the wrong thread.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6753|Argentina

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:


Your insane! THERE WAS SECRET PRISONS UNDER CLINTON TOO ya know!!!!!

These prisons are nothing new, we have been outsourcing our prisoners for over 40 years now!! FYI!

It happend in Vietnam through today, so I dont know what the huge shock is all about. . .
I ain't talking about the prisons.  I'm talking about the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the link between Saddam and 9/11. the WMD's, and he also lied about the prisons.  I never said the prisons are new, but Clinton never said I don't know a shit about this.  How can the president not know these prisons are there?
It has less to do with lying and more to do with security, you see if the media and shit goes around trying to find and uncap the secret CIA prisons than that is a blow to the security and function of them......I haven't seen anything but good results from the prisons and if you want to talk about Saddam and Al Qaeda you are in the wrong thread.
Well, it's confusing the thing about the threads will those polls brought to you by AW. 
The prisons probably are there since a lotta time, ok.  But he said before he didn't know about them and now he admits their existence.  So, he lied about that, about the links between Iraq and 9/11 and al-Qaeda, about the WMD's.  I think you can say the guy is a big lier.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6640|Seattle, WA

sergeriver wrote:

about the links between Iraq and 9/11 and al-Qaeda, about the WMD's.  I think you can say the guy is a big lier.
Not lies, he didn't know about them when he stated that information, everyone had the same intel

A refresher, lying is NOT saying something that you believe is true because of certain intelligence that later is false, lying is:

making a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

So where was Bush deliberately trying to deceieve anyone, the proof isn't there, so good luck finding it.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6515|Πάϊ

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

the proof isn't there, so good luck finding it.
I'm afraid you're right. I doubt if undeniable proof will ever be found. But shutting your eyes won't help. I mean come on... On the one hand we hear about state of the art spy satellites and how good a job the CIA, NSA etc are doing in keeping you safe by providing intel and so on. And on the other you are saying that all these people and all that hi-tech intelligence stuff couldn't find a bunch of WMDs within a shithole of a country like Iraq. It's not as if you were spying on Russia or Germany or Japan or whatever!?! Iraq is practically 3rd world ffs. Its not like its huge either

Last edited by oug (2006-09-10 03:22:43)

ƒ³
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6640|Seattle, WA

oug wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

the proof isn't there, so good luck finding it.
I'm afraid you're right. I doubt if undeniable proof will ever be found. But shutting your eyes won't help.

Iraq is practically 3rd world ffs. Its not like its huge either
Technology is wonderful, we weren't there on the South border of Iraq where there was A LOT of movement, Saddam had them before, that was verified by MANY different countries......I'm not closing my eyes I am awaiting proof of this supposed lying that some of these guys keep screaming about but all it is, is hate, and disagreement formed into a word that is not even used correctly, and you say my eyes are closed?? Yeah, ok, I'm sorry, I believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty, I believe in justice (If Bush did something wrong, sure, prosecute) otherwise stop the bullshit.

Again as for the WMD's, we weren't there, there are many places to hide that shit in Iraq, and the south border WENT CRAZY when before we started invading.  I know it does seem anti-climatic that we have all the technology and it didn't help, but sometimes thats how things work.

And Iraq is fairly big, relative to its neighbors (minus Iran).
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6577|SE London

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

oug wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

the proof isn't there, so good luck finding it.
I'm afraid you're right. I doubt if undeniable proof will ever be found. But shutting your eyes won't help.

Iraq is practically 3rd world ffs. Its not like its huge either
Technology is wonderful, we weren't there on the South border of Iraq where there was A LOT of movement, Saddam had them before, that was verified by MANY different countries......I'm not closing my eyes I am awaiting proof of this supposed lying that some of these guys keep screaming about but all it is, is hate, and disagreement formed into a word that is not even used correctly, and you say my eyes are closed?? Yeah, ok, I'm sorry, I believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty, I believe in justice (If Bush did something wrong, sure, prosecute) otherwise stop the bullshit.

Again as for the WMD's, we weren't there, there are many places to hide that shit in Iraq, and the south border WENT CRAZY when before we started invading.  I know it does seem anti-climatic that we have all the technology and it didn't help, but sometimes thats how things work.

And Iraq is fairly big, relative to its neighbors (minus Iran).
Telling inteligence agencies what you expect them to find is wrong. There is some evidence that suggests that is what Bush did. There was quite lot of trouble over in the UK about stuff like this. Sexing up of dossiers, the JIC being influenced by government policy. There has been evidence that suggests that the same happened in the US and that the inteligence agencies agenda was to find the WMDs and make a case that Saddam had them. There was a documentary on the BBC around the time of the Hutton report (if anyone knows what it's called I'd be interested in watching it again). This documentary featured sources from within the CIA who claimed they had submitted reports saying it was unlikely there were any WMDs and had been told to go back and look again, that they better find something. Inteligence should be used as a basis for policy making - not as a tool to back up whatever course of action the government decides upon.

The Hutton inquiry, the same as most government inquiries exonerated the government (big suprise). There was however a lot of evidence that suggested that the government had in fact reworded numerous inteligence reports to make a case for war.

Any WMDs Saddam may have had were sold to him by the US and the UK in deals brokered by Rumsfeld.

Iraq is quite big - about the size of France, all the UK news reports said, incessantly.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6515|Πάϊ

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Technology is wonderful, we weren't there on the South border of Iraq where there was A LOT of movement, Saddam had them before, that was verified by MANY different countries......I'm not closing my eyes I am awaiting proof of this supposed lying that some of these guys keep screaming about but all it is, is hate, and disagreement formed into a word that is not even used correctly, and you say my eyes are closed?? Yeah, ok, I'm sorry, I believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty, I believe in justice (If Bush did something wrong, sure, prosecute) otherwise stop the bullshit.

Again as for the WMD's, we weren't there, there are many places to hide that shit in Iraq, and the south border WENT CRAZY when before we started invading.  I know it does seem anti-climatic that we have all the technology and it didn't help, but sometimes thats how things work.

And Iraq is fairly big, relative to its neighbors (minus Iran).
Generally I think its very hard to find undeniable proof about a thing like this. This whole impeachment thing sounds like a big joke to me. With a few shiny exceptions like the Watergate, I think impeachment is futile. So if you're waiting for proof Albert I'm afraid its gonna take some time...

As for the WMDs, many things could have happened, except what you claim. Saddam was in no position to escape himself, let alone his WMDs. The whole country was a mess. I wouldn't bet my money on your scenario... But still that doesn't matter. Hell the US and so many other countries have WMDs. What's the big deal if Saddam had them as well? He wasn't more of a lunatic than GWB or any other soab.
ƒ³
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6833
Glad he isn't jerking off, that tactic  realy didn't put fear into our enemie's hearts did it ?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard