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.

 

How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 



To get those terrorists who did 9/11


In that case, go look for those high tech al-qaeda caves that was reported on the news. That's where they are all hiding.



Hey if its on the news, then it has to be true, right?


edit on 19-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


There is no war on terror. Have you not figured that out yet? There is only jackboot bullying and aggression by the fascist usa and its cronies. At the behest a globalist agenda to milk resources and gain geopolitical clout.
If you cant see that you are blind my friend.

Well maybe you are the blind one if you didn't see the terrorist attacks on the USA 9/11? Or if you are too young to remember 9/11 after all it was in 2001 which is 11 or 12 years ago now, then maybe you should read about it.



Wikipedia: September 11 attacks

London was bombed too.

Wikipedia: 7 July 2005 London bombings

and as NATO allies America, Britain and the rest stand together to defend ourselves against our terrorist enemies and, hopefully in due course, against all the states which sponsor our terrorist enemies.

As the NATO principle states - "An attack on one, is an attack on all".

Britons express solidarity with Americans who were attacked by terrorists as I did here.



Americans express solidarity with Britons who were attacked by terrorists as Condoleezza Rice did here.




Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
NO ONE has ever conquered the afghans, and no one will.

It's about liberating the Afghans, not conquering them.


Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
We are getting our asses handed to us over there,

That's why I have published my plan so that we can do much better and win.


Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
while we murder the civilian population.

Untrue. Our forces are ordered to avoid civilians casualties wherever possible but bear in mind that the terrorists sometimes hide in among civilian populations which means that sometimes when targeting the enemy there is a risk of civilians being accidentally hit on occasion and that is deeply regretted when it happens but in war sometimes these things happen.


Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Its a tragic farce.

Well we should be more effective for sure and that's why I am publishing my plan.


edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by poet1b
 



There is only one way to win such a war.
Kill all the men who show any sign of aggression, impregnate the women, and raise a new generation.
That's the way they did it way back then.


Well, a lot of people have a problem with "them" doing as it was done way back then.

If your approach is going to be barbaric, then you are on the same level as "them".

Agreed. We must not lose sight of our values as decent humans as we fight the enemy; values such as those I have named in this video and represented so well to the world by Condoleezza Rice.



Those are our values and we must hold them close, especially in war. Our values are our strength and shield in the face of evil because they bring all good people to our side in war and good will always triumph over evil in the long run. That's why we are winning this war on terror, if more slowly than I would like, hence my plan.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


We are not winning this war on terror. Let's check out some action from Iraq.


Yesterday - According to Iraqi police, seven people were killed after mortars hit a mosque in the town of Khalis, 80 kilometers north of Baghdad, as worshippers were leavening the mosque following the Friday Prayers.

The attack also left 14 people injured and destroyed part of the mosque.

A bomb also exploded inside a mosque in Kirkuk, killing two persons and injuring 12 others.

Violence has increased in Iraq this week in the run-up to the elections, despite heightened security and a total of 14 election candidates have been already murdered."



The explosion occurred at 10:00 p.m. local time (1900 GMT) on Thursday at a small shopping mall in the capital’s Amiriyah neighborhood, AFP reported, citing unnamed officials.

Three children were among those killed, according to the officials.

No group claimed the responsibility for the attack.

Thursday’s bombing marks the latest in a spate of violence just ahead of Iraq's provincial elections on 20 April, the first in the country since 2010.

On Monday, at least 31 people were killed and more than 200 others were injured in a spate of bomb attacks across Iraq.


Thats only a couple of incidents from this week.. But I guess because Allied soldiers aren't being killed, we must be winning, yeah? How about Afghanistan?


The Taliban claim they have killed at least 15 foreign troops and 10 Afghan soldiers in the province of Helmand, in the country’s restive south.

It said the deaths occurred in the town of Sangin on Friday when a Taliban assailant blew up his explosive-laden car, targeting a joint convoy of US-led and Afghan troops.

The militants also claimed that four tanks belonging to foreign forces were destroyed in the blast.

Most of the foreign forces stationed in Helmand province are American and British.



The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that violence is increasing significantly in Afghanistan as the Taliban are stepping up their spring offensives.

"Spring is a good season of the year usually. But unfortunately it has a negative connotation with the resumption of the fighting. Spring and summer will be very difficult for civilians especially in the months ahead. The civilian population is bearing the brunt of this conflict," Gherardo Pontrandolfi, head of the ICRC delegation in Kabul, said on Thursday.


Who are we kidding? We aren't winning anything.. But hey, at least we are getting brown people killed on a regular basis, I guess we can say that's something we have achieved really well. We cannot win the war on terror because most of the time, we don't know who the hell we are meant to be attacking and when we finally do, we only find out we have killed innocent civilians in most cases. Great job guys, great job.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by cleverhans
How about the US and western allies mind their own business by staying out of there and not provoking their anger in the first place?


Don't be sensible for christ's sake.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
irrelefant :

The "elephant", the symbol of the American Republican Party, is far from "irrelevant" as these videos suggest.








Originally posted by ressiv
you just cant win.... ask Russia....

Wrong, with Condi leading us, we can't lose and many Russians would agree.





edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Well, that's pretty much what they have been doing so far. Not just with the resistance fighters, but with non-combatants, women, children etc.


Yes, this is exactly what the Taliban are doing, and have been doing for centuries, and Muslims in Africa and India.

What I am describing are the tactics of Islamic jihad.

NATO has been trying to fight a civilized war against men who will not play by those rupees, who have no qualms about killing mom-combatants, even women and children to win at all costs.

It has been said by others, to defeat Islam, we will have to wipe out 3 generations of men.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


The Middle East is running out of the light sweet, and when their oil production drops to the point of irrelevancy, the US will probably end their presence there.

That's many years off yet.


Originally posted by poet1b
However, I don't think Islam will ever be at peace with the rest of the world.


Oh I think Islam, which means "peace" can be at peace with the rest of the world OK, as can Christianity, Judaism and any other religion, so long as those religions are led by wise people and not by war-mongering clerics paid by dictators and monarchs to incite their populations to war for a warped version of their faith.

What's needed is leadership by exceptional faith leaders who can reach across the street from Church to Mosque to Synagogue, to unite in fellowship and communion with God all the Abrahamic religions. You know who I have in mind for that job, right?




A new messiah for a new age.





edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


Sure we are winning the war on terror.

Our war on terror does not mean that we need to protect all Muslims from each other.

As the oil runs out things are going to get far worse in the Middle East. This is not the responsibility of the west.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


Thanks for the info.

Hey no problem. That's what armchair generals are for!



Originally posted by GArnold
Sadly you can not win a war vs a idea or state of mind.

And how would you describe Osama Bin Laden's state of mind right now?


Originally posted by GArnold
It is like trying to defeat capitalism or communism.

Well pure capitalism, survival of the fittest, red-in-tooth-and-claw, can terrify you if you've no money and no way of getting any and you need money for food and rent, sure.

Communism can terrify you if the secret police are after you for your dissident views.

So yes I suppose capitalism and communism can have certain terrorist aspects to them under certain circumstances.

But for example, you can defeat capitalism red-in-tooth-and-claw with a welfare state to take care of those without money and have a kind of compassionate capitalism, which is not so bad.

You can defeat communism with openness, economic liberalisation and democracy though defeating the secret police, the worst feature of communism, is more difficult because secret police don't really have any ideas they care about other than they are always really in charge behind the scenes no matter who thinks they are the elected president. But secret police can be defeated by being shot out of hand by freedom fighters who just dish out to the secret police a taste of their own medicine.


Originally posted by GArnold
There is no defined enemy. You cannot defeat terrorism. That is a giant problem with your argument here.

Well the terrorists define themselves when they commit violent acts of terror or organise such. Osama Bin Laden was for ever defining himself with his stream of videos which we put an end to.

As for state sponsors of terrorism, those who fund and organise terrorists behind the scenes while publicly denying they are doing so - your investigative reporters and intelligence analysts can define those enemies - and I have posted videos here which define enemy Pakistanis and Saudis.

Sure they can be defined and you'd know that if you had watched all the videos I have posted here.


Originally posted by GArnold
Secondly we will never renounce out strategic relationships with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Well you know that thinking is exactly what is spinning this war on terror out for ever and a day.

We have a strategic relationship with Arabian oil. We have no strategic need for the Saudi royals and their jihadi hangers-on. There are plenty of much nicer Arabs we could support for regime change.

There is a self-destructive relationship we have by funding Pakistan to the tune of $2 billion plus dollars per year. We have been duped that we are paying for Pakistan's help in the war on terror but for Pakistan terror is big business - Pakistan gets paid by the Saudis for growing new terrorists and Pakistan gets paid by us for handing in caught terrorist small-fry. Terrorists are Pakistan's cash crop and the longer we keep paying Pakistan to keep farming new terrorists the more they will keep a new crop of terrorists taking up arms against us every year. That's why Pakistan wouldn't hand over Bin Laden and won't hand over Al Zawahiri or Mullah Omar or Sami ul Haq - they need these terrorist leaders to be the seed-corn for the next crop of terrorists.

The strategy we need to take with Pakistan is as I have described in my OP.


edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


The US is funding the Taliban right now as I type this... They did up till Sept 10th 2001 and do so currently. There is a new book out called Funding the Enemy discussing the current arrangement in Afghanistan.

The US funds Pakistan willingly to the tune of $2 bn+/yr and some of that Pakistan invests in the Taliban to keep the future years $2 bn+ guaranteed.

So you don't need a new book - just watch the SECRET PAKISTAN video - to know that the US is inadvertently funding its own Taliban enemy.


Originally posted by GArnold
All you really need to do is look at poppy production since 9-11 to realize that there is a lot of money to be made.

For drug dealers there is money to be made but there's no money to be made for the US tax-payer in the destructive illegal drugs trade.

Drug dealers are walking through the elephant-sized holes in the current lame "strategy" (if our policy could be called that), same as the Taliban, warlords and corrupt Afghan officials are walking through the holes in our current policies.

If we take control of our supply routes as I have described we can stop drug movements out of Afghanistan by searching everything that moves along or crosses the main highways. This will leave drug dealer gangs no option but go to school to learn an honest trade or take a labouring job in reconstruction.


Originally posted by GArnold
The US has a long History of playing both sides in many conflicts in our relatively short History.

I know, the US's takes its own side and the US also on occasion takes its own enemy's side and ends up fighting itself. It's not a good strategy to fund and support your enemy. It's a self-defeating strategy or it would be if the US was not so enormously strong. It's like the US helps its enemies to make the fight interesting. Reminds me of the puppet in Team America World Police who puts down his gun to fight the terrorist hand-to-hand to "make this interesting"!



And you know it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for all those American soldiers who went home in body bags because the US leaders aren't smart enough to simply adopt a very good strategy from day one, make it a quick, clean win, crush the enemy and be done with them.


Originally posted by GArnold
The other point I will make is that our regime change has been a total disaster in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 11 years after the Taliban was defeated Afghanistan was named the most corrupt country on Earth at the end of 2012. It was number 6 on the current failed States list.

Frankly we have spent trillions of dollars and thousands of US service members have died as well as over million civilians in those two Country's. With current economic conditions we simply cannot afford any more wars that end up having a terrible impact on both them and the United States. You cannot force democracy on places that do not want it and whose very idea is alien to them.

Realistically your proposal has no chance of working. The regime change has been a unmitigated disaster. You cannot defeat an idea. What possibly makes you think that these people even want it? I could go on and on about why your 4 point plan would never work but am on my lunch break at work.
edit on 19-4-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)

We can't afford a poor strategy which is dragging this quagmire out, sure. That's why I am publishing my plan to end this quick.

The problem was we didn't do enough regime-change. The issue with Iraq and Afghanistan is we have neighbouring countries likes of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan who'd much rather our regime-change in Iraq and Afghanistan be seen to fail and so who are doing everything they can to make it fail, especially funding and supporting terrorist groups.

If we had regime-changed or at least policy-changed the neighbouring countries to force them to play nice then Iraq and Afghanistan would be famous successes today.

And a good strategy doesn't have to cost more. We could save $2 bn / yr by not paying Pakistan and the same again by not paying Egypt.

It would cost us next to nothing to seize or jam satellites to stop enemy satellite TV stations and foment regime-change by democratic revolution from our satellite TV from space.

OK, if we have to send the tanks into Saudi Arabia to sort the Saudis out, that will cost a lot more but if we seize Saudi oil for ourselves and the Arab people then our financial problems are solved, though we'd have to admit to "war for oil" in that case.

Look I appreciate you are angry and upset. I am too. The difference between us is that I have spent a lot longer than my lunch break on coming up with a really good plan to win this war sharpish.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)??

Air-drop laptops and smart phones all over the country.

Park a free internet satellite over the country.

Wait ten or fifteen years

Well the Taliban want money to live off and guns and ammunition to take power and once they've sold their air-dropped laptops and smart phones they are going to go back to the Pakistani ISI for more supplies which they will get if they keep trying to retake power in Afghanistan which they want anyway.

And you know, if the Taliban kept the laptops and smartphones they'd distribute movies of them chopping Afghans' heads off for not obeying the Taliban courts enforcing their version of Sharia law and use the smartphones to warn each other when a responsible military or police patrol was coming along the road, whether that's our forces or Afghan forces, and when is a good time to plant a road-side bomb or improvised explosive device or Pakistani sourced mine on the road to blow up the Taliban's enemies, us or our friends.

I have heard this before - now the Afghans have got mobiles - but it won't save the Afghans when the Taliban come to kill them in their homes - only give them a chance to make a final phone call to a loved one maybe.

Sorry, but everyone nice in Afghanistan would be dead or left the country in 10 or 15 years with your plan.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by penninja
Nice try.

But we aren't "trying to win the war on terror"

It can't even remotely be won by the methods you describe.





Originally posted by penninja
The USA is doing this far more subtly.

So the USA is a super-power subtly disguising its army as a tethered-goat, eh? Well that's one excuse the Pentagon planners can take to the White House to see which president buys it this time.


Originally posted by penninja
Take Pakistan for example, what would we do?

I've said what we do, in the OP.


Originally posted by penninja
antagonize them to a degree they use Nukes?

Countries don't use nukes if they are antagonized but if using nukes is the best military action to take to improve the countries prospects.

For Pakistan, using nukes is the worst move imaginable because of the inevitable nuclear counter-strike from the West.

Remember Pakistan has played the US like a fiddle, rode the US like a horse, to con $ billions of dollars a year of US tax-payer dollars in "aid" money.

Pakistan is not dumb enough to make the worst move and use nukes.



Originally posted by penninja
Go right at them so China activates and fight them too?

No. We do what I say in my OP.


Originally posted by penninja
No we have handled this well... Get on the ground, get the the locations and information as to where the bombs are, build an interdependence with China, let the terrorist continue, show proof, allow the situation to be unstable, have the cooperation of the great cultures locally China and India

And when the time comes.... we'll have the info and help we need to take them out preferably without them launching a single Nuke....we bide our time cooperate with the civilized nations get the defense systems in place, know what will be launched from where. Save a Billion lives.

The US and West have not handled Pakistan well. We've paid Pakistan more than $20 billion since 9/11 much of which Pakistan has spent on more nuclear weapons no doubt.

We don't need China to fix a problem that the West caused by funding Pakistan's nukes and terrorists. We caused the problem, we can fix it.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Holy wall of text Batman.

Has anyone found the end of the original post?

The first post on page 2 is the end of my OP.


Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
This concludes my OP!



See.


Originally posted by gladtobehere
Who wants to be the one to tell the OP that he just wasted 35 hours of his life?

It's not a waste if anyone reads it, which they have.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by maes2
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 

I think the only solutions are :

1- stop government terrorism
2- stop supporting the radical islamists


Stop Pakistani and Saudi sponsored terrorism, yes.
Stop supporting terrorists with aid to governments who sponsor terrorism, like Pakistan and Egypt, yes.

So far, so good.


Originally posted by maes2
then you win it. that is it !

Not quite.

You do stop supporting your enemy yes but then you follow up by crushing your enemy, wiping them out.

If you just stop the enemy states from supporting one bunch of terrorists but leave them free to rethink their terror plans they will find someone else to subcontract their terrorism out to such as maybe .. oh Chechnyan terrorists come to mind right now for some reason.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


I haven't yet seen all you have written, just did a quick look I disagree with the point regarding peace talks as a show of weakness and lack of resolve and fully agree and even starred the corruption across the supply chain. I have seen a very descriptive video documentary that covers that subject, America is a corporation whose shareholders are corporations themselves, not people but bean counting psychopathic greedy legal constructs that serve to validate the worst of humanity on a faulty society.

In the case of the peace talks one needs to consider that war only occurs after all other means fail, the Taliban did interact with the US government before and after 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan was a collateral of the finger pointing to Osama (I will not get into that here). So the war was really a cover for other interests but mainly the capture of the criminal due to the refusal of the Taliban to play ball. Afghanistan also has other interesting characteristics, it is near Russia, borders several Soviet states, China and Iran. There is also a well established mineral interests in the region as well as a need to curb Pakistan's influence on the region (that was mostly influenced by previous US support). All that allied with the economic benefits any war brings to the US military complex and supply infrastructure was the reasons for its existence, the peace talks is a disengagement strategy to a previously reasonable and stable situation of dialog with the added benefit that some of the previous objectives got satisfied.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by amkia
Like thousands before you…

You’d be lucky if someone stand and make a prayer at your grave for the fun of it (most likely will be urinating on) if you are lucky to have one.


I'll be past caring when I am dead.



Originally posted by amkia
Dude.. stop this BS..please..lol


My plan is not BS IMHO and I'll stop when we've won.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
War on Terror? bunch of boogeyman BS, all those terrorist groups are white people, or trained by CIA ect...

Trained in Pakistan by the Pakistani ISI, military intelligence. Watch the SECRET PAKISTAN video in my OP.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Other countries might have problems, wait they didn't until the Russians and US invaded giving certain civilians weapons to fight their own people.

There will be another country invading Afghanistan if we just pull out regardless. Pakistan will be right back in there with their proxy terrorists the Taliban grabbing power and causing problems for Afghans and us by training up some more terrorists for foreign jihadi terrorism, or if not the Pakistanis then the Saudis or Iranians will be in there. Someone will step in no doubt.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
And educate them on what? were they stupid or something before the foreign armies arrived?

To be honest, I don't think Afghanistan has been well served by the various global and regional powers trying to call the shots there. Probably it would have been best for them if every other country had stayed out and left them to their own devices. If they had been less stupid all Afghans would have united against all foreign influence and maintained their independence.

But Afghans were stupid yes. Afghans fell out among themselves and the various factions sought backing from one foreign power or another to try to get power over their fellow Afghans. It's easier for us to know that now with the benefit of hindsight.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Listen, if these terrorist groups were such a big threat, America would be a battle ground already.

Well that's why I think it is fair to say we are winning the war on terror slowly, too slowly because the USA and Britain are fairly quiet. The disaster has really been in Iraq and Afghanistan and you know, it could have been worse..


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
America has problems also, you don't see Islamist coming to your country bombing the crap out of it telling you you got problems.

Well USA 9/11 & London 7/7 shows that's what they'd want to do if they could.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Your a bully OP just like the murderers you support.

Hey all I've got here is a fully-armed keyboard and I'm not using it to support murder.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


Not thanks to the U.S thought, Hitler gave Germans what they have today,

Wrong. Hitler left Germany a pile of rubble and his burnt body.

The US invested massively in post WW2 with the Marshall plan, gave them a great constitution and German engineering genius did the rest.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
and U.S committed the most horrible crime in history when they dropped an over kill bomb on civilians, and 2 of them!! just to test it out.

Well Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as military targets I believe but it was that or many more US and Japanese soldiers killed in conventional war because the Japanese were suicidal with their own lives. So it was that.

The point however is that it doesn't make military sense for states like Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to confront the US directly - that's why they use proxy terrorist groups when they want to hit the USA.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Cmon dude, this post is terrible, your basically saying the same thing that a "terror" group is probably saying about American, you are not different then they are. And if a man joins the military to shoot people, it's not so bad he gets shot and dies, it's pretty much what they are signing up for, shoot or be shot.

Oh I think it is bad if a soldier who is defending my freedom is shot and just fine if a terrorist who is wanting to deny me freedom is shot.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
This whole WAR is for profits and that's it, so they invented some Terrorists to make an excuse to exploit someone else s land and freedom just they can make some Imaginary money.

It's more that there is profit in Arabian oil and that might be OK but the profits or rather the taxes are not being used wisely by the Arab monarchies and some of it is foolishly being used to sponsor terrorism.


Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Honestly stop man, you sound like a murderer.

Sorry but someone has to fight our enemies if we are to stay safe.



edit on 20-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


Why would any Western decision bring peace to Syria?

It's not easy for us to fix Syria while our troops are sandwiched in Afghanistan between Russia and Pakistan.


Originally posted by DarknStormy
It was the West who decimated what was a peaceful secular country in the first place..

No it wasn't. It was al-Assad's secret police who started shooting unarmed peaceful Syrian demonstrators.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join