Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the USA the most EVIL nation on the planet

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Hey baby, I'm true blue American baby I love you, but I must agree with most of all you have to say. We need a new administration and cabinet. The Bush people pulled us back decades...well, the truth is they are oil people and sold out the country long ago. Thanks for posting your most challenging posts. You get Americans to think outside the propaganda and to consider alternate realities.

Not all of us Americans are like some you see on here. Better days for the USA and for the world are to come, just as soon as these crooked oil executives, conservative Republicans, and Neo-cons, are finally thrown to the curb.

God Bless America. The America I love. (not the one under these fasciest pigs)




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 





Oh, yes, the "Highway of Death". Seems that some people have a problem with the use of force that was used. Big deal. The army was in retreat; it had not surrendered. Thus, they were a legit target.





The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols.
deoxy.org...


first US war crime against humanity on 'highway of death' use of incendiary bombs..




This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."
deoxy.org...


Second US war crime against humanity on 'highway of death' , killing of soldiers out of combat,
Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."




There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.


third war crime



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by August Sonereal
 


org sources on war crimes by US:

deoxy.org...

deoxy.org...

deoxy.org...

more :

The United States is knowingly violating Article 54 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits any country from undermining "objects indispensable to the survival of (another country's) civilian population," including drinking water installations and supplies, says Thomas Nagy, a business professor at George Washington University.

Writing in the September 2001 issue of The Progressive, Nagy cites recently declassified documents that show the United States was aware of the civilian health consequences of destroying Iraq's drinking water and sanitation systems in the Gulf War, and knew that sanctions would prevent the Iraqi government from repairing the degraded facilities.

During the Gulf War, coalition forces bombed Iraq's eight multi-purpose dams, destroying flood control systems, irrigation, municipal and industrial water storage, and hydroelectric power. Major pumping stations were targeted, and municipal water and sewage facilities were destroyed.

Article 54 of the Geneva Convention prohibits attacks on "drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works."

Nagy says that not only did the United States deliberately destroy drinking water and sanitation facilities, it knew sanctions would prevent Iraq from rebuilding, and that epidemics would ensue.

One document, written soon after the bombing, warned that sanctions would prevent Iraq from importing "water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals" leading to "increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

Another document lists the most likely diseases: "diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely.)"

Then U.S. Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, but many more have died since. UNICEF estimates that well over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S-led sanctions regime, in place for the last decade. Some 500,000 children have died, and an estimated 4,000 die from various preventable, sanctions-related diseases, every month, says the U.N. agency.
www.mediamonitors.net...


heres a list of US war crimes committed in Iraq compiled by an NGO:

www.consumersforpeace.org...

The report was prepared by Consumers for Peace with the adviceof Karen Parker, noted lawyer in human rights and humanitarian law. Ms. Parker is President of the San-Francisco-based Association of Humanitarian Lawyers and Chief Delegate to the United Nations for the Los Angeles-based International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project (IED/AHL), an accredited non-governmental organization on the U.N. Secretary-General’s list.




You fail to mention how the British was supporting a lot of Indian wars in the frontier and that causes the US to do something, so, not are fault. They started to fight, we fought back.



For the American rebels the American Revolutionary War was essentially two parallel wars: while the war in the East was a struggle against British rule, the war in the West was an "Indian War". The newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for the allegiance of Native American nations east of the Mississippi River. The colonial interest in westward settlement, as opposed to the British policy of maintaining peace, was one of the minor causes of the war. Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to halt colonial expansion onto American Indian land. The Revolutionary War was "the most extensive and destructive" Indian war in United States history.
en.wikipedia.org...




United States continued to gain title to Native American land after the Treaty of Greenville, at a rate that created alarm in Indian communities. In 1800, William Henry Harrison became governor of the Indiana Territory and, under the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, pursued an aggressive policy of obtaining titles to Indian lands. Two Shawnee brothers, Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa, organized another pan-tribal resistance to American expansion. Tecumseh's goal was to get Native American leaders to stop selling land to the United States.
en.wikipedia.org...



Text
Numerous Indian Removal treaties were signed. Most American Indians reluctantly but peacefully complied with the terms of the removal treaties, often with bitter resignation. Some groups, however, went to war to resist the implementation of these treaties. This resulted in two short wars (the Black Hawk War of 1832 and the Creek War of 1836), as well as the long and costly Second Seminole War (1835–1842).

[edit] Second Seminole War

White settlers began to push into Florida which was now an American territory and had some of the most fertile lands in the nation. To compound this, run away black slaves sometimes found refuge in Seminole camps. The inevitable result was clashes between white settlers and the native Americans already residing there. Andrew Jackson sought to alleviate this problem by signing the Indian Removal Act which stipulated forced relocation of Native Americans (if necessary) out of Florida. The Seminole Indians, led by such powerful leaders as Aripeka, Micanopy, and Osceola, had little or no intention of deserting their ancestral homelands and quickly retaliated against settler theft, encroachment and attacks on their camps.
en.wikipedia.org...


clearly , you stole the lands from the poor helpless native indians , who desperately tried to resist the imperialist american politics



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


And did Saddam even notify that the troops were "out of combat"? Did he even let anyone know he was surrendering? Sorry, they were targets for destruction. No worries.

But, now that you're on this subject, how about Saddams treatment of the people of Kuwait? Guess that's not a war crime, huh?

How about the torture of coalition POWs? I've asked that question of you at least three times, yet you fail to come up with an answer?

How about something a bit more recent? How about the treatment of US Army POWs in the beginning of OIF? How about photos of US troops with bulletwounds to the forehead, showing they were executed?

What about the recovery of bodies of US troops captured by insurgents and they show signs of torture and mutiliation?

How about Nick Berg? Remember him, or are you wearing blinders to the fact that the insurgents ain't playing by any rulebook that you seem the US must follow to the letter?

OK, I know my questions require a lot of thinking and answers, so how about something that's a simple yes or no? Do the insurgents have to follow the Geneva Conventions?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 






And did Saddam even notify that the troops were "out of combat"? Did he even let anyone know he was surrendering? Sorry, they were targets for destruction. No worries


lol, they announced on their national radio their decision to pull out from Kuwait was made by on the basis of the Soviet-brokered peace plan to end the gulf war and United Nations Resolution 660 that calls for an unconditional withdrawal. and the americans did not stop attacking , clearly the forces were moving out of Kuwait on the basis of decision of withdrawal and US continued attacking them , as per Geneva Convention its clearly a war crime...



UPI Archives
Monday, Feb. 25, 1991

Baghdad Radio: Saddam orders troops out of Kuwait
By DENHOLM BARNETSON, United Press International

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein Monday ordered his troops to withdraw from Kuwait, Baghdad Radio said, as allied forces sliced through occupied territory in what one U.S. general said was a ''tremendous success'' even in their first brushes with the elite Republican Guard.

Earlier Monday, Iraq launched a Scud missile, killing 12 Americans in Saudi Arabia.

Iraq said the decision to pull out from Kuwait was made by on the basis of the Soviet-brokered peace plan to end the gulf war and United Nations Resolution 660 that calls for an unconditional withdrawal.

In Washington, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the United States had not been contacted about any Iraqi withdrawal.

''There is nothing to respond to,'' Fitzwater said. ''The war goes on.''
100years.upi.com...





But, now that you're on this subject, how about Saddams treatment of the people of Kuwait? Guess that's not a war crime, huh?


Saddam is already dead(hung to death) , on the basis of military tribunal trial for war crimes....

so like when will Mr.Bush be hung to death for war crimes against humanity




How about the torture of coalition POWs? I've asked that question of you at least three times, yet you fail to come up with an answer?


Saddam dead in his grave , go to his grave and contact with ouija board for answer




What about the recovery of bodies of US troops captured by insurgents and they show signs of torture and mutiliation?


clearly US is the occupier and those Sunni insurgents are funded by Saudi Arabia who is USA's 'ally in the war of terror' ...

go ask Bush and his oil thirsty cronies on why they are not charging responsible Saudis funding sunni jihadis for war crimes against Iraqis ...




OK, I know my questions require a lot of thinking and answers, so how about something that's a simple yes or no? Do the insurgents have to follow the Geneva Conventions?


go make Saudi Arabia , your ally against terror and US president/CIA/Govt stand in Hague for violating Geneva Conventions and if you are so concerned stop purchasing gasoline and diesel from Saudi Arabia , Go ahead boycott it .
rather than whining about insurgents , who are funded by Saudis



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 



Well, doesn't seem like you have any good answers for the hard questions. "Go ask the Saudis" isn't an answer. "Go get a ouija board and talk to Saddam" isn't a good one, either.

You have pat answers and finger pointing for "US War Crimes" but when it comes to the war crimes of others, you don't have much to offer but empty air.

Once again, looks like you are a no-go at this station. Thanks for playing, and be sure to pick up a copy of our home game!!

Have a fine AFSOC day.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 





Well, doesn't seem like you have any good answers for the hard questions. "Go ask the Saudis" isn't an answer.


incorrect , heres what my quote was:



clearly US is the occupier and those Sunni insurgents are funded by Saudi Arabia who is USA's 'ally in the war of terror' ...

go ask Bush and his oil thirsty cronies on why they are not charging responsible Saudis funding sunni jihadis for war crimes against Iraqis ...


as you are a concerned 'citizen' , i gave you my suggestion .




You have pat answers and finger pointing for "US War Crimes" but when it comes to the war crimes of others, you don't have much to offer but empty air.


empty air lol, I gave my answer , you should try the responsible saudis guilty of funding terror like saudi royal family for crimes like funding terrorists who attacked USA , so like when will you contact the US govt ...
--
''Once again, looks like you are a no-go at this station. Thanks for playing, and be sure to pick up a copy of our home game!!

Have a fine AFSOC day.''
---
??????what the hell?????

[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Oh, c'mon mason! Reach deep into that heart of hate you have for the US and give me an honest opinion on the treatment of Coalition POWs in the First Gulf War and OIF. Simple question. "Ask the Saudis/Bush" isn't an answer.

I don't care about the Saudis, etc. I want to know if YOU think that the insurgents have to play by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Simple question, and even a simple answer to be given.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


apparently , heres the answer :



Tixeire, whose organization is defending some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, said that while U.S. officials may have had a point in accusing the Iraqi military of violating the Geneva Conventions over the TV interviews, the way the U.S. treated Iraqi captives was much worse.

“It’s clear to me these actions came down from the very top,” Tixeire said. “Denying prisoners of war humane treatment is the greatest breach of the Geneva Convention. It's a war crime. They put U.S. troops at risk for being treated inhumanely if they were captured.”
onlinejournal.com...


and you ask about insurgents abiding by conventions .... whos the occupiers =USA, the resistance=shia militias and sunni insurgents(also chaos and anarchy makers) ...

as for shia militias they are mostly on ceasefire , and for sunni insurgents funded by your Beloved ally Saudi Arabia , they are making chaos for common iraqi man and US army and your nation blame Iran for the situation instead of Saudi Arabia , What hypocrisy ......




you have for the US and give me an honest opinion on the treatment of Coalition POWs in the First Gulf War and OIF.


the above source will provide you your answer .




Oh, c'mon mason!


now don't tell me that you think I am Illuminati/NWO funded agent for creating unrest and chaos against USA , as some of wacky paranoid members on this board accused me of ,

call me Manson , not MASON





I want to know if YOU think that the insurgents have to play by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Simple question, and even a simple answer to be given.

on the insurgents :
1. The insurgents are not a State.
2. The insurgents have not signed the Geneva Conventions.
3.Insurgents are funded by nations , who have signed Geneva Conventions

clearly for this , the people /state sponsors of insurgents(like Saudi Arabia) are to be charged of war crimes as they sponsor the insurgents
as per Nuremburg trials stated in 1945-46 ...

so when will Hague charge US govt and Saudi Arabia for war crimes against humanity


[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
What, manson, no response or excuse in your inventory of verbal diarrhea to answer my challenge that India is just as evil as the U.S.? Because it's true. Every world leader thirsts for power. If they didn't, they never would have become leaders. Every country prioritizes its own needs and defense ahead of that of others'. That's the way the world works.

Remember that when you point your finger at someone else, three others point back at you.


lol, what BS ??? if India had economy like USA , we would use to remove poverty and raise standards of living , rather than wasting on military(what your dumb dumb genocidal US govt does)

a 100 billion $ is more than enough to have powerful and decent military with effective nuclear deterrent



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


So, if I read this right, MANSON (first name ain't Charles, is it?) it's A-OK for the insurgents not to follow the Geneva Conventions.

That means, they can:

- Use women/children as human shields.
- Bomb hospitals/IRC facilities and personnel
- Torture/maim/mutilate/execute POWs
- Use places of worship (mosques, churches) as observation points, caches for weapons, etc, and for sniping of troops.
- Set up fighting positions/command centers which are legitimate targets in wartime, in areas that will needlessly expose civilians and other non-combatants to the fighting.....

And, they aren't to be held accountable? YET, US forces are to be, since the US did sign the Geneva Conventions.

And when the US does bomb an insurgent position that might be co-located with civilians, and civilians are killed, the US must be brought up on charges of a war crime?

Hang on, I have to catch my breath. That has to be the funniest thing I've heard of in quite a while!




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by manson_322
 


So, if I read this right, MANSON (first name ain't Charles, is it?) it's A-OK for the insurgents not to follow the Geneva Conventions.

That means, they can:

- Use women/children as human shields.
- Bomb hospitals/IRC facilities and personnel
- Torture/maim/mutilate/execute POWs
- Use places of worship (mosques, churches) as observation points, caches for weapons, etc, and for sniping of troops.
- Set up fighting positions/command centers which are legitimate targets in wartime, in areas that will needlessly expose civilians and other non-combatants to the fighting.....

And, they aren't to be held accountable? YET, US forces are to be, since the US did sign the Geneva Conventions.

And when the US does bomb an insurgent position that might be co-located with civilians, and civilians are killed, the US must be brought up on charges of a war crime?

Hang on, I have to catch my breath. That has to be the funniest thing I've heard of in quite a while!






A-OK for the insurgents not to follow the Geneva Conventions.
at means, they can:

- Use women/children as human shields.
- Bomb hospitals/IRC facilities and personnel
- Torture/maim/mutilate/execute POWs
- Use places of worship (mosques, churches) as observation points, caches for weapons, etc, and for sniping of troops.
- Set up fighting positions/command centers which are legitimate targets in wartime, in areas that will needlessly expose civilians and other non-combatants to the fighting.....


already answered , as per Nuremberg trials of 45-46 , the state sponsor or the individual funding/sponsoring the insurgency is accountable ,which is Saudi Arabia ,Pakistan and your govt is a former sponsor of Islam terror
SO DON'T TWIST MY WORDS ....




And when the US does bomb an insurgent position that might be co-located with civilians, and civilians are killed, the US must be brought up on charges of a war crime?


and most time US F-16's drop 2000 pound bombs or powerful ordances on potential buildings that may be harbouring 1 and 2 terrorists and many other civilians , as Justice delayed is Justice denied , if for 1 terrorist , many civilians are killed , then its a war crime , and the reaction of civilians will resentment and popularity of insurgency, (which is so in Falluja , a sunni area of Iraq


on geneva convention,article 3 :


If an insurgent party applies Article 3, so much the better for the victims of the conflict. No one will complain, If it does not apply it, it will prove that those who regard its actions as mere acts of [p.38] anarchy or brigandage are right. As for the de jure Government, the effect on it of applying Article 3 cannot be in any way prejudicial; for no Government can possibly claim that it is ' entitled ' to make use of torture and other inhuman acts prohibited by the Convention, as a means of combating its enemies.

www.icrc.org...

so the US has to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice(which it fails to), which has many of the same restrictions.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


hey , your post is disgusting and racist .

anyways , USA is both evil and good .

how ???

evil for nations it attacks

good for those who it supports.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322

already answered , as per Nuremberg trials of 45-46 , the state sponsor or the individual funding/sponsoring the insurgency is accountable ,which is Saudi Arabia ,Pakistan and your govt is a former sponsor of Islam terror
SO DON'T TWIST MY WORDS ....



Right. So, if an insurgent is captured after blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market, killing women and children, he's to be let go?? You know, since he's really not responsible???


Originally posted by manson_322.....and most time US F-16's drop 2000 pound bombs or powerful ordances on potential buildings that may be harbouring 1 and 2 terrorists and many other civilians , as Justice delayed is Justice denied , if for 1 terrorist , many civilians are killed , then its a war crime , and the reaction of civilians will resentment and popularity of insurgency, (which is so in Falluja , a sunni area of Iraq



Contrary to popular believe, the US, when targeting insurgents, try to avoid civilian casualties. This has been beat to death on ATS. If we really didn't care, if one insurgent was spotted in a house, we'd level the city.





Originally posted by manson_322

.....on geneva convention,article 3 :

so the US has to follow the Uniform Code of Military Justice(which it fails to), which has many of the same restrictions.


Really? The US military isn't following the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ? That's why a bunch of Marines were put on trial?

Your logic of "insurgents don't have to follow the GC" is really lacking. They (the insurgents) don't follow LOAC, then cry the blues to the press and media when they get schwacked by the US military.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


Thanks for the link for the war crimes stuff, I'll read it here in a minute (looked promising)


As for the Indian Wars things,why aren't you on the British case? Here's a paragraph from the wikipedia source.


Native Americans were stunned to learn that, when the British made peace with the Americans in the Treaty of Paris (1783), the British had ceded a vast amount of American Indian territory to the United States without informing their Indian allies. The United States initially treated the American Indians who had fought with the British as a conquered people who had lost their land. When this proved impossible to enforce (the Indians had lost the war on paper, not on the battlefield), the policy was abandoned. The United States was eager to expand, and the national government initially sought to do so only by purchasing Native American land in treaties. The states and settlers were frequently at odds with this policy, and more warfare followed.


The British screwed the Native Americans over almost as much as the Americans did. Also, how come you won't mention the Spanish at least while we're on the topic? Cortez did some pretty messed up things as well. Not forgetting other things.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by August Sonereal
As for the Indian Wars things,why aren't you on the British case? Here's a paragraph from the wikipedia source.


Add the French to that, too. They weren't really that good to the Indians, either.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Really? I understand they kinda screwed with them too, but I thought the French and Indians were pretty much cool with each other. Plus, I think the French were really interested into expanding that much in the Americas (until Napoleon) and that they hung out with the Natives for the economic riches that came with it.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322


lol, what BS ??? if India had economy like USA , we would use to remove poverty and raise standards of living , rather than wasting on military(what your dumb dumb genocidal US govt does)

a 100 billion $ is more than enough to have powerful and decent military with effective nuclear deterrent


Keep telling yourself that, if you want to. The people of India would probably want the government of India to do exactly that, but that's not what governments do. Even in a Democracy, the government is out for its own benefit. India's government would be as brutal as every other government that ever became a world superpower. Maybe you missed the famous saying, "If power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The reason is, people are evil. Oh sure, the "little guys" like you and me who were raised to have a sense of moral decency, we'd do the right thing and be peaceful and help others. But the people who become powerful... Nuh uh. They're all rotten to the core, otherwise they would have been content with being powerless. There are no real heroes, not on this world, not in this time, not in America - I'll give you that - but not in any other country either.

Earthlings are despicable. Ever watch Bugs Bunny? The sad fact is, if there are aliens up in space watching our TV shows, they probably think Marvin the Martian is the good guy.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 





Right. So, if an insurgent is captured after blowing up a car bomb in a crowded market, killing women and children, he's to be let go?? You know, since he's really not responsible???


he is to be tried under local law , provided there is proof for proving hes guilty




Contrary to popular believe, the US, when targeting insurgents, try to avoid civilian casualties. This has been beat to death on ATS. If we really didn't care, if one insurgent was spotted in a house, we'd level the city.


beaten to death by pro-American ATS members , the US mass military attack on Falluja was a genocide .




Your logic of "insurgents don't have to follow the GC" is really lacking. They (the insurgents) don't follow LOAC, then cry the blues to the press and media when they get schwacked by the US military.


nothing is lacking , as insurgents are not a state , nations sign GC ...
1. The insurgents are not a State.
2. The insurgents have not signed the Geneva Conventions.
3.Insurgents are funded by nations , who have signed Geneva Conventions

clearly for this , the people /state sponsors of insurgents(like Saudi Arabia) are to be charged of war crimes as they sponsor the insurgents
as per Nuremburg trials stated in 1945-46 ...




then cry the blues to the press and media when they get schwacked by the US military.


the answer is already by article 3 of the Geneva conventions :
If an insurgent party applies Article 3, so much the better for the victims of the conflict. No one will complain, If it does not apply it, it will prove that those who regard its actions as mere acts of [p.38] anarchy or brigandage are right. As for the de jure Government, the effect on it of applying Article 3 cannot be in any way prejudicial; for no Government can possibly claim that it is ' entitled ' to make use of torture and other inhuman acts prohibited by the Convention, as a means of combating its enemies.
www.icrc.org...



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by August Sonereal
 


when did I deny that other imperialists alongside american genocidal imperialists ,are resp for destroying naive indians





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join