It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unprecedented' Drone Assault: 58 Strikes in 102 Days

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


again showing the enemy respect is not a way to win a war. its like the ceasefires they have on ramadan i wouldnt do it. I'd keep bombing them.

i never said suicide bombers were cowardly. Any tactic is legitimate in warfare.


edit on 20-12-2010 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


If there was no respect in war, then there would be no such thing as Remembrance Day/Veterans Day, no armistices, no surrender of the Third Reich, a nuclear holocaust between the Americans and the Soviets, and no peace on Earth.

No negotiating with "terrorists" = following an agenda and creating conflict.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


oh i'd let them surrender like the germans until then we should keep attacking. Taliban recently said theyre not interested in negotiating despite nato willingness to do so. Their choice , we'll just keep bombing them.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by yeti101
my favourite drone strike was when they got a group of taliban then about an hour later when the rest had gathered to bury them at the funeral the drone struck again at the funeral party.


Yeah, really respectful of your enemy. No wonder why they want to kill Americans now. Douchebag


In war, respect reaches its limits when it prevents you from defeating your enemy, and if they aren't following your code of Chivalry then what use is it? There's no sense in winning the moral battle whilst losing the physical one.

The Taliban aren’t going to thank you for not bombing their funeral party, especially considering that you had killed the people whose death they are mourning. I would be keen for revenge afterwards, wouldn’t you? Best to eliminate the possibility of an afterparty rampage, or simply take the opportunity to kill them when it presents itself, as if they would act any differently.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by yeti101
my favourite drone strike was when they got a group of taliban then about an hour later when the rest had gathered to bury them at the funeral the drone struck again at the funeral party.


Yeah, really respectful of your enemy. No wonder why they want to kill Americans now. Douchebag


In war, respect reaches its limits when it prevents you from defeating your enemy, and if they aren't following your code of Chivalry then what use is it? There's no sense in winning the moral battle whilst losing the physical one.

The Taliban aren’t going to thank you for not bombing their funeral party, especially considering that you had killed the people whose death they are mourning. I would be keen for revenge afterwards, wouldn’t you? Best to eliminate the possibility of an afterparty rampage, or simply take the opportunity to kill them when it presents itself, as if they would act any differently.


So you would have no problem is the Taliban assaulted a ramp ceremony for a dead American soldier, right? That could take out dozens of their enemies.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
So you would have no problem is the Taliban assaulted a ramp ceremony for a dead American soldier, right? That could take out dozens of their enemies.


None whatsoever, that’s not to say that I would be jumping for joy but I would certainly do the same if I was in their position.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Completely ridiculous. You're trying to tell me that a drone firing a Hellfire ATGM from 10,000ft distinguishes its target better than a suicide bomber who is standing among their targets? What a suicide bomber targets is based solely at their discretion and is an ideological one; I despise anyone who thinks you need "surgical" warfare, you speak like you are sterilizing a friggin' disease or something.


Anyone and i mean anyone who targets civilians are a disease, so yes, i say eradicate them without any reservation or remorse. Does that cross the t's and dot the i's enough for you to see my stand on individuals such as these or like minded individuals who support such acts.



American cruise missiles and drone strikes have been known to routinely strike crowded areas like markets and indiscriminately kill random people perceived as targets because they appear to look like "terrorists" from 10,000ft away. It's a proven fact that the CIA was paying cash to random civilians to place drone targeting beacons at target locations (and most of the time the operatives would take the money and dump the beacon in indiscriminate locations). There's also been more than a few cases where American missiles strike a crowded location and afterwards when there's a hundred dead civvies laying around, the Americans will blame it on a suicide bomber.


In respect to the beacons that were given in the initial stages in exchange for something called "money" and the occasional citizen who genuinely wanted a change, well i would say the moment a person accepts money and then knowingly attaches a beacon to a civilian occupied position (non-military target) then he or she is what i would define as a total waste of oxygen consumption. As for the occasions that missiles did/have hit a non military target then in my view it is a regrettable loss and one that is not within parameters of engaging hostile forces unless authorized. Since we are dealing with technology and technology is never 100% then sadly such outcomes are inevitable.


There is no way in hell that drone strikes are discriminate. This may be the case if you're fighting a conventional enemy who has bunkers and known military positions, not when the CIA targets a couple of "terrorists" in random houses with many more civilians inside. Then people have the audacity to say that the "terrorists" are using human shields.


There are many cases and it is a common practice that terrorists do and have and will use civilians as a shield inorder to deter strikes. But when the stakes are that high, sadly and as always the loss of innocent human life is unavoidable.


Man, I can't wait until the US faces a real, technological threat. UAVs would be hacked and turned against them. I've heard of very rare instances of some operatives even remotely commandeering a Predator, if not only to see through its camera.


Perhaps you may have been reading one to many blogs across the net. Sure there have been incidents that coms were lost but nothing approaches what you have mentioned.


Perhaps you should contemplate the thought as to why Mecca has allowed a safe haven for such groups. I see no beacons placed there but we all are very aware that it is being used as a point to coordinate and fund its continuous attacks across the world and targeting any nation it see's as infidels whiles using innocent civilians as a shield and religion as a deterrent. I guess the term coward totally fits like a glove here doesn't it ?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
So you would have no problem is the Taliban assaulted a ramp ceremony for a dead American soldier, right? That could take out dozens of their enemies.


None whatsoever, that’s not to say that I would be jumping for joy but I would certainly do the same if I was in their position.


It's called respecting the dead, and respecting those who respect the dead.

The Taliban are a religious group and they care about the spirit of the dead. The Americans obviously don't when they have no problem bombing funerals and imposing media blackouts on their own casualties, only exploiting them in the media in some fascist attempt to rally against the enemy.

When you are a side in war that does not take into consideration respect for the enemy or their spiritual beliefs, and you treat war as if it is "surgery" with a clear-cut strategy and tactics, then you become a genocidal force. This is exactly what the Nazis turned out to be. Way to pay attention to history.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

There is no way in hell that drone strikes are discriminate. This may be the case if you're fighting a conventional enemy who has bunkers and known military positions, not when the CIA targets a couple of "terrorists" in random houses with many more civilians inside. Then people have the audacity to say that the "terrorists" are using human shields.


There are many cases and it is a common practice that terrorists do and have and will use civilians as a shield inorder to deter strikes. But when the stakes are that high, sadly and as always the loss of innocent human life is unavoidable.


Since drones apparently kill the "terrorists" quickly and without their knowledge, then how can you even begin to assume that the "terrorists" are intentionally using civilian shields when they are unknowingly attacked by a drone?

And human shields are used all the time, by Americans, by PMCs, by Russians, by Israelis (in this case, they keep human shields close by at gun point as opposed to just attracting civilians on the street by dangling water or food in front of them).


Perhaps you may have been reading one to many blogs across the net. Sure there have been incidents that coms were lost but nothing approaches what you have mentioned.


Nope, I don't read blogs. I get some of my information from ATS, and more from people experienced in coverage of these wars.


Perhaps you should contemplate the thought as to why Mecca has allowed a safe haven for such groups. I see no beacons placed there but we all are very aware that it is being used as a point to coordinate and fund its continuous attacks across the world and targeting any nation it see's as infidels whiles using innocent civilians as a shield and religion as a deterrent. I guess the term coward totally fits like a glove here doesn't it ?


Mecca, as in Saudi Arabia? Gee, I wonder why there are no beacons there. Perhaps because the Saudi Royal family is in bed with the US government? Probably because if the Americans ever struck Mecca, you would have 2 billion global muslims fighting against western forces for the survival of their religion?

Mecca has nothing to do with Islam-terrorism. The fact that you think the holy Muslim city controls islamo-terrorism is disturbing. You would condone bombing the first civilized location established by modern humanity?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
When you are a side in war that does not take into consideration respect for the enemy or their spiritual beliefs, and you treat war as if it is "surgery" with a clear-cut strategy and tactics, then you become a genocidal force.


You don't become a genocidal force at all, you become a more efficient one. If you do not consider the enemy's spiritual beliefs, whoever they are, then surely that shows indifference towards culture and religion rather than persecuting your enemy because of it.

Such cold efficiency might be hard to stomach but as I said, if your enemy isn’t following your code of Chivalry then what use is it? In a game of chess you don't refrain from taking your opponent’s pieces at the risk of upsetting them, not if you want to win anyway.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by tristar

There is no way in hell that drone strikes are discriminate. This may be the case if you're fighting a conventional enemy who has bunkers and known military positions, not when the CIA targets a couple of "terrorists" in random houses with many more civilians inside. Then people have the audacity to say that the "terrorists" are using human shields.


There are many cases and it is a common practice that terrorists do and have and will use civilians as a shield inorder to deter strikes. But when the stakes are that high, sadly and as always the loss of innocent human life is unavoidable.


Since drones apparently kill the "terrorists" quickly and without their knowledge, then how can you even begin to assume that the "terrorists" are intentionally using civilian shields when they are unknowingly attacked by a drone?


Drone's are used in this case within pakistan due to an agreement as there a limit as to how many military forces can be stationed there and in the case you aren't aware, hence the reason why nato forces are stationed.


And human shields are used all the time, by Americans, by PMCs, by Russians, by Israelis (in this case, they keep human shields close by at gun point as opposed to just attracting civilians on the street by dangling water or food in front of them).


If that is the case, then i have some serious ass kicking to do, since live feed of ambushes within cities or trails upon allied forces are 99% one side, military against terroist who wear civilian clothes to disguise their intentions and once the initial attack is halted then flea and merge into the general population making it almost impossible to capture. But i guess an airstrike from 42k feet would do the job, but thank god, it is not how allied forces operate.



Perhaps you may have been reading one to many blogs across the net. Sure there have been incidents that coms were lost but nothing approaches what you have mentioned.



Nope, I don't read blogs. I get some of my information from ATS, and more from people experienced in coverage of these wars.


Initial video steaming was intercepted, but it wasn't by some boy wonder who knew cryptology, although this is a public site, did you ever happen to pause and wonder how and why such interception was allowed, was it, how would i call it now, a honey pot ?



Perhaps you should contemplate the thought as to why Mecca has allowed a safe haven for such groups. I see no beacons placed there but we all are very aware that it is being used as a point to coordinate and fund its continuous attacks across the world and targeting any nation it see's as infidels whiles using innocent civilians as a shield and religion as a deterrent. I guess the term coward totally fits like a glove here doesn't it ?



Mecca, as in Saudi Arabia? Gee, I wonder why there are no beacons there. Perhaps because the Saudi Royal family is in bed with the US government? Probably because if the Americans ever struck Mecca, you would have 2 billion global muslims fighting against western forces for the survival of their religion?


Mecca has nothing to do with Islam-terrorism. The fact that you think the holy Muslim city controls islamo-terrorism is disturbing. You would condone bombing the first civilized location established by modern humanity?

The fact is that the Saud family will NOT move into Mecca as it would result in an overthrow and revolution across the muslim hard core nations. So the term " money " falls exactly into place once again. The sad part is everyone who sides with these terrorists fails or should i say have been so well conditioned that they believe that anyone who stands against anything that is represented by the U.S. or NATO should be killed at best. ( Humans are so predictable). But fear not, this cat and mouse game that is at hand serves all sides at all times, it is only when the dominant decides its time to call in the chips that the cause/ideology will come to an end.

It is inevitable and it is slowly unfolding right beneath your nose as we speak, 2011 is going to be a very interesting year to say the least.

*Quick off topic post,
Dimitri i am genuinely enjoying our interaction within ats.

edit on 20-12-2010 by tristar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


the taliban & AQ dont respect anyone or anything if it doesnt conform to their world view. If you think drone strikes are cowardly so are roadside IEDs. I think theyre both legitimate tactics to use against an enemy.

Rather unsporting of terry not to wear any army uniforms like nato do, i wonder why? same reason they dont arrange to meet nato on a battlefield away from civilians. Becuase they would get annihalated.

Thats war for you but you only complain about one side which shows how biased you are.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
When you are a side in war that does not take into consideration respect for the enemy or their spiritual beliefs, and you treat war as if it is "surgery" with a clear-cut strategy and tactics, then you become a genocidal force.


You don't become a genocidal force at all, you become a more efficient one. If you do not consider the enemy's spiritual beliefs, whoever they are, then surely that shows indifference towards culture and religion rather than persecuting your enemy because of it.

Such cold efficiency might be hard to stomach but as I said, if your enemy isn’t following your code of Chivalry then what use is it? In a game of chess you don't refrain from taking your opponent’s pieces at the risk of upsetting them, not if you want to win anyway.


I'm going to say it once again. What you are describing to be efficient US strategy and tactics are the exact same views that the Nazis carried out.


tristar-
Drone's are used in this case within pakistan due to an agreement as there a limit as to how many military forces can be stationed there and in the case you aren't aware, hence the reason why nato forces are stationed.


If Pakistan did not comply with American "compromises", then the US would've probably invaded Pakistan outright. The truth is that the ISI supports radical Islamic terrorists because they are able to wage asymmetrical warfare against India, which is the goal of ISI (and the Taliban has always been the Pakistani proxy group in Afghanistan while the Northern Alliance was India's proxy).


Initial video steaming was intercepted, but it wasn't by some boy wonder who knew cryptology, although this is a public site, did you ever happen to pause and wonder how and why such interception was allowed, was it, how would i call it now, a honey pot ?


I'm not talking about some kid on the internet. I'm talking about Al Qaeda (or other aligned groups) running around the battlefield with a good amount of intel on Americans ops, and using military grade laptops to hack into drone feeds. I've heard of instances where somebody was able to disrupt drone communications, tap into the feed, cut off control entirely, or change the flightpath of the drones.

Imagine if Russia or China were engaging American drones and the technology they could use to screw with their systems.


The sad part is everyone who sides with these terrorists fails or should i say have been so well conditioned that they believe that anyone who stands against anything that is represented by the U.S. or NATO should be killed at best.


Or more like people in the West are so conditioned to believe that tribal rebels in Afghanistan are out to kill Americans (well, at least not before the 2001 invasion)


It's the same NATO lies as with the Soviets. NATO always cried that the Soviets were out to kill Americans and take over Europe; fact is that the Soviets were interested in a multicultural empire and their Europe and American war strategies were strictly defensive in case of NATO offensives.


It is inevitable and it is slowly unfolding right beneath your nose as we speak, 2011 is going to be a very interesting year to say the least.


Everything is indeed unfolding, everywhere. We should expect to see South America rise up next year against American imperialism, along with crackdowns all over North America to suppress resistance of the implementation of "Fortress America".


yeti101-
the taliban & AQ dont respect anyone or anything if it doesnt conform to their world view. If you think drone strikes are cowardly so are roadside IEDs. I think theyre both legitimate tactics to use against an enemy.


IEDs are one of the few capabilities that these specific rebels have in order to defend themselves. You're comparing a superpower being justified in using drones to kill rebels with drones to IEDs? Americans don't like seeing their soldiers die, and so CIA likes to maintain minimal casualties in conducting their secret ops so it doesn't gain attention.


Rather unsporting of terry not to wear any army uniforms like nato do, i wonder why? same reason they dont arrange to meet nato on a battlefield away from civilians. Becuase they would get annihalated.


For one, the rebels don't belong to a government and as such, do not have uniforms.

For two, if you cannot ID somebody wearing body armor and holding a gun, then you shouldn't be shooting them. Period. It doesn't take an idiot to see the difference between a civilian and a rebel, in terms of their stance, clothing, weapons, armor, and tactics; but it certainly makes it hard to figure out this distinction when you're shooting at them from so far away that you might as well just be shooting civilians and planting guns on them- WHOOPS it's already proven in some military courts that some American squads carry around AK-47s just for this purpose

edit on 20-12-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm going to say it once again. What you are describing to be efficient US strategy and tactics are the exact same views that the Nazis carried out.


Yes and who else? It is common sense.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



IEDs are one of the few capabilities that these specific rebels have in order to defend themselves.You're comparing a superpower being justified in using drones to kill rebels with drones to IEDs?


Drones are the only capability NATO has to hit terry inside pakistan.

dont worry though youve made your position clear. Anything terry does is justified and anything NATO does isn't.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



IEDs are one of the few capabilities that these specific rebels have in order to defend themselves.You're comparing a superpower being justified in using drones to kill rebels with drones to IEDs?


Drones are the only capability NATO has to hit terry inside pakistan.

dont worry though youve made your position clear. Anything terry does is justified and anything NATO does isn't.


NATO was formed as the counter-force to the Warsaw Pact. Since there is no USSR anymore, nothing NATO does is justified.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

tristar-
Drone's are used in this case within pakistan due to an agreement as there a limit as to how many military forces can be stationed there and in the case you aren't aware, hence the reason why nato forces are stationed.


If Pakistan did not comply with American "compromises", then the US would've probably invaded Pakistan outright. The truth is that the ISI supports radical Islamic terrorists because they are able to wage asymmetrical warfare against India, which is the goal of ISI (and the Taliban has always been the Pakistani proxy group in Afghanistan while the Northern Alliance was India's proxy).


You yourself have answered as to the reason why they are there:

and the Taliban has always been the Pakistani proxy group in Afghanistan while the Northern Alliance was India's proxy

One must also take into account the logistics when engaged and as it stands, its far more cost efficient to be several hundred miles closer rather than several miles further. One should also come to terms and comprehend that the U.S. is not some giant that does as it pleases, if it was, then Iraq would have been nuked from day 1, hope we understand each other.


Initial video steaming was intercepted, but it wasn't by some boy wonder who knew cryptology, although this is a public site, did you ever happen to pause and wonder how and why such interception was allowed, was it, how would i call it now, a honey pot ?


I'm not talking about some kid on the internet. I'm talking about Al Qaeda (or other aligned groups) running around the battlefield with a good amount of intel on Americans ops, and using military grade laptops to hack into drone feeds. I've heard of instances where somebody was able to disrupt drone communications, tap into the feed, cut off control entirely, or change the flightpath of the drones.

Imagine if Russia or China were engaging American drones and the technology they could use to screw with their systems.

To begin with , uav's are not controlled via laptops, the majority, i assume, are guided via leo sat systems therefore if and when a sat stream has the so called seconds rate delay it automatically does light up as a Christmas tree, therefore such posts to me, myself, are lets say a non-topic. As for Russia and China, well if you recall during the Nato conflict of the then Yugoslavian war, the Chinese embassy was hit, was it hit by accident, no..was the stealth downed by engine failure...no, was the russian counter electronic vessel in the mediterranean there for a pleasure cruise..no. As you can see i am not so naive as my spelling or syntax may indicate not that you stated otherwise, i am simply stressing a particular point for future reference.


The sad part is everyone who sides with these terrorists fails or should i say have been so well conditioned that they believe that anyone who stands against anything that is represented by the U.S. or NATO should be killed at best.



Or more like people in the West are so conditioned to believe that tribal rebels in Afghanistan are out to kill Americans (well, at least not before the 2001 invasion)


It's the same NATO lies as with the Soviets. NATO always cried that the Soviets were out to kill Americans and take over Europe; fact is that the Soviets were interested in a multicultural empire and their Europe and American war strategies were strictly defensive in case of NATO offensives.


This is my response:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering




It is inevitable and it is slowly unfolding right beneath your nose as we speak, 2011 is going to be a very interesting year to say the least.



Everything is indeed unfolding, everywhere. We should expect to see South America rise up next year against American imperialism, along with crackdowns all over North America to suppress resistance of the implementation of "Fortress America".


Ahh..yes South America, well they have been dormant for so long it is something that people tend and hope for but the fact is, S.America has far more potential when referring to its citizens to side with nations that have excelled into a higher level of social interaction and commerce than a nation that seems to hold leaders in power that can be described either as a monarch systems to say the least ( See Cuba ). But let's not forget, keep your citizens at the lowest possible level of existence and education on a national scale then once the citizens begin to uprise against the imposed ideology of "we are fighting evil" allow them freedom of choice which in comparison to evovled nations seems like its a stone age choice, they will gladly keep voting and voicing the illusion. People are a product of their environment.

In the event that you may have come under the impression that i am some one sided one minded person, then perhaps you should click on the link www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 20-12-2010 by tristar because: fixed quotes and added link.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



IEDs are one of the few capabilities that these specific rebels have in order to defend themselves.You're comparing a superpower being justified in using drones to kill rebels with drones to IEDs?


Drones are the only capability NATO has to hit terry inside pakistan.

dont worry though youve made your position clear. Anything terry does is justified and anything NATO does isn't.


His opinion is well defined and his position and thoughts are well respected and this is a common platform of how one perseveres reality when viewed from different positions. What many fail to embrace is that sure the west has many problems within its political and theological system but that does not and cannot justify targeting civilians who go about their daily lives struggling like you and myself or anyone else in attempting to improve their standard of living. It is when one imposes a theoretical and categorized approach to how and at what standard of living is considered adequate that is the most dangerous aspect of human evolution.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


NATO was formed as the counter-force to the Warsaw Pact.


This statement is false.


In the Communist Bloc, the treaty was the military analogue of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the Communist (East) European economic community. The Warsaw Treaty was the Soviet Bloc’s military response to West Germany’s May 1955[1] integration to NATO Pact, per the Paris Pacts of 1954
wiki



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


NATO was formed as the counter-force to the Warsaw Pact.


This statement is false.


In the Communist Bloc, the treaty was the military analogue of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CoMEcon), the Communist (East) European economic community. The Warsaw Treaty was the Soviet Bloc’s military response to West Germany’s May 1955[1] integration to NATO Pact, per the Paris Pacts of 1954
wiki


Really? Because that's not what military documents/political science instructors/Canadian history instructors claim



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
This is priceless, I love it when Canadians get butt hurt. The only cool stuff that Canada produces is: maple syrup and RUSH. If it were not for Geddy Lee and company Canada would be a waste of space. Don't argue about your aerospace contributions because Avro was staffed with Brits. Canada is a marginal country of little importance to world events.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join