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

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


As long as there is oil in the Middle East, Muslims will buy all the weapons the west is willing to sell.

WhIle the west has it problems, the nations controlled by Islam are far worse.



You just said it right there, IF the west stops selling middle eastern countries their weapons, then those countries wouldn't be in the situation they are in right now.

Yet you don't call the sellers criminals (Russia, Europe, America,China and the rest of the kids), you blame the people that are defending them self's against the dudes that merchandising weapons of mass destruction, and then you give support to actions that are so unnecessary, that are a HUGE waste of funding, go against all human rights, and makes murder acceptable as long as your wearing a uniform????

Who buys most of this oil? YOU DO, all of us... and it just happens to be so that our countries are advertising that somewhere on this planet, there is an enemy who is thinking about terrorizing you, and in doing so take YOUR MONEY, in order to protect humanity by funding and MURDERING the people they pointed the fingers at.

You people support murder and yet at the same time are against it, someone would call that an identity crisis, but on an epidemic level, and your telling me that the Middle Eastern countries have problems........?




posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Western forces make a considerable effort to not harm non-combatants, women and children.

Islamic jihadist intentionally target women and children, and non-combatants. Not only that, but they hide behind the women and children in order to conduct their war.

Agreed and well said.


Originally posted by poet1b
They use high birth rates as a form of conquest.

What?

I totally disagree with that.
Jadihists are not having babies. They are killing babies and getting themselves blown up as suicide bombers. If they were at home having babies like they should be doing, they wouldn't be out on jihad!

High birth rates, assuming that the babies are wanted and can be fed, is to be welcomed. It is not an act of war. It is an act of love!

Otherwise Nadya Suleman, Octomom is our best warrior!



But, you know, Nadya''s not a warrior, she's not a Muslim, she just loves her children and very good luck to her!


I would really like to have a big family myself but have not found any women to have my kids, as yet.

So I think big families are great, ideal so come on ladies and let's get started!



Originally posted by poet1b
This is how despicable these jihadists are.

Despicable for killing babies, not for having them!


Originally posted by poet1b
It is also not the first time tellIng lies and twisting the truth has been used to ignore the atrocious of the Jihadists.

Right again!


edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: edit



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


The thing is, the US and western allies weren't in there, in Afghanistan, but 9/11 happened and that's where Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda had based themselves and that's why they invaded, to get those who did 9/11.

Pardon me,

are you insulting ATS members. I hope its just ignorance.


It's not ignorance, it's not an insult, it's the truth!


Originally posted by InhaleExhale
They might not have been on the ground but a massive force was being prepped in the Indian ocean prior to 9/11.

Exercises in international waters, if anything.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale
the Taliban were prepared to hand over Bin Laden if the US could prove their allegations,

Ha, ha, ha, ha.
The Taliban were not a legitimate authority that any self-respecting government would have any need to prove allegations to. The US did not recognise the Taliban as a legitimate government of Afghanistan. They did not have diplomatic relations with the Taliban.

The Taliban got more than they were entitled to when the US gave them an opportunity to hand Bin Laden over.

The US had their evidence against Bin Laden OK and were proved right when Bin Laden confessed to an involvement in 9/11 in 2004.


edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: spacing



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


A lot of people don't like the slogan "war on terror". I like it because it makes clear that we are making war on the terrorists and those states which sponsor terrorists and we are not waging war on the peaceful people of any country.

Wait, so there are no innocent people in the Middle East?

What? How dare you say that in reply to my post? Now you are the one who is insulting me! Of course the people of the Middle East are innocent!

If someone says "white" - do you ask "Wait, so black?"

Really if that is the best you can do, there is no point in debating with you.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale


My plan is not to win a "war on half-the-world" but to win the "war on terror". My plan is a good plan yes because it is a plan to win the war on terrorists who are waging war on us.

Do you know when bombs go off and if some unfortunate innocent citizen is near by they might be terrorized?

Well innocent citizens are not targeted by our forces, unlike jiahadi forces who do target innocents.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Did you know that fighting a war in these modern times involves weapons that go BOOM, that explode?

Now you are being silly.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale
How is a war on terror ever won when the war itself creates terror?

The war is won when the terrorist organisations and their state-sponsors are eliminated, regime-changed or otherwise defeated and stopped from terrorising people.




edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: spacing



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


If we bomb their buildings down they will look much less convincing preaching from the top of a pile of rubble.

Sorry what


Yeah much less convincing, they are telling people look at our lands being destroyed by these foreign invaders, hey bombing where they preach these messages will be proof the invading force is here to help

My plan does not ask for the land to be bombed. What gets bombed is the elaborate buildings that the state has provided for jihadists, allowed them to have to give them a grand platform from which to preach their lies against the West, their incitements to war against us.

My plan does not feature a claim that our forces have invaded to help jihadists tell their lies.
My plan is much more to do with disorganising their systematic campaign of lies.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale


The most effective tool used by zealots to brainwash people to die for them is the satellite TV which we invented,

I would have to say NO,

The most effective tool is the weapons the Allied forces are using to liberate people.

A person will die for these zealots because their family was blown up by a drone strike and any chance they get they will take to fight their own war on terror against the terrorizing allied force invading their country.

No they won't if they are told the truth. We were targeting an enemy in war. If we made a mistake then we are sorry and will pay compensation.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

You are not describing my plan. If you want to criticise my plan you need to know what it is first. I suggest that you read my plan first because you don't seem to know what I propose. Then when you've read my plan maybe you'll understand that terror groups will be defeated by my plan, not in any way reinforced.

Maybe you need understand human nature a little better then.

Did you not propose dropping bombs or using drones to do strategical strikes?

Sorry but I don't understand how using terror will defeat terror.

Surgical strikes. Pin-point strikes on enemy bases, sparing civilians, even giving fair warning to evacuate civilians if the target is a building as opposed to a human target where notice cannot be given in advance.

We don't employ terror. Our aim should not be to terrorise terrorists but to capture or kill them. They can sit and watch cartoons on TV in prison for the rest of their lives so far as I am concerned so long as they are not killing innocent civilians.



edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: edit



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


We came to regime-change and rebuild but it is like trying to build a house while your neighbour is trying to burn your new house down as you are building it.

To build a house one must have land, is that not the case?

If you have land and your neighbor does as well, of coarse he will try burning down your house if you try building it on his land.

But Afghanistan is not the Pakistani military's land, nor the Saudis, nor the UAE's nor the Iranians, nor the Taliban acting as a proxy for any of those powers.

Afghanistan is the land of the Afghan people and we are there to see they get their own land and don't have it stolen by the Taliban!

The Afghans should be allowed to rebuild their country with our help without those hostile neighbouring powers blowing it all up!


Originally posted by InhaleExhale


Look here's a Jordanian jihadi group brainwashing a young lad from their Sunni / Shiite community to go to Iraq and blow himself up as a suicide bomber and kill innocent civilians of the other Shiite / Sunni community


OK just realized you really have no clue,

Your mistake.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale
Carry on

Thank you.





edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: more



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 



Oh I think Islam, which means "peace"

No it doesn't. my previous point is being solidified with some of the things you post.



Wikipedia: Islam: Etymology and meaning

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, safeness and peace.[21] In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".


I knew "peace" was in there somewhere.


Originally posted by InhaleExhale


You know who I have in mind for that job, right?

I am thinking this a troll playing games, but why do 10 post OP or whatever it was?

Can you think of a better person to bring the Abrahamic reglions to the table in peace than Condoleezza Rice?

Otherwise, I'll consider this point uncontested.


Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow
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.



Condoleezza Rice went to Blackburn & Liverpool, England and sat down with Muslims and this was the result ...





edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 



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



WTF




What do Secret police have to do communism? Do you know what communism is?

What did the Soviet secret police, the KGB, have to do with maintaining the power of the Soviet Communist Party leadership?

It was a one-party state and if you did anything political except through the one party, the communist party, the KGB would be after you.

It doesn't matter what communism said it was, what mattered was what it was in practice which was a secret police state and no freedom.

Well "no freedom" unless you are very clever like Gorbachev and can work to change the system from within. Anyone not so wily would be sent to the labour camps.

Even then the KGB still spied on Gorbachev.

Putin was KGB and no doubt used that to keep power in Russia after the end of the Soviet Union.

Putin didn't really believe in communism either you see. He was KGB, secret police and all they believe in is power, for themselves.




edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 


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


Enemies are created through and for fighting, how is fighting not going create more enemies?

Why would it? You kill the enemies of the people, in this case the enemies of the Afghan and Pakistani people, the Taliban and then you get peace!


Originally posted by InhaleExhale
You can kill them all, but are you going to kill their children as well?

Of course not!



Originally posted by InhaleExhale
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 



I think it is more important to arrest or kill the right people, especially the enemy leaders if you can identify them and allow for friendly leaders to take power.



Kill the right people.

Who decides right and wrong?

Do you think the US is GOD or something, judging who is wrong and right who lives or dies...

this has to be joke,

Kill the enemy - the terrorists, the Taliban - who do you think we are talking about in this topic? After all the topic is called "How to beat the Taliban"!

So our forces are careful only to target the Taliban, Al Qaeda, other terrorist enemies and not innocent people.

It's not hard to know that the Talban are the enemy of the Afghan and Pakistani people and are our enemies!

How many times do you have to be told that the Taliban were hosting terrorists who were attacking our homelands?

We didn't just pick the Taliban at random!

Really, what a foolish person!




edit on 29-4-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: typos



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow


I would really like to have a big family myself but have not found any women to have my kids, as yet.

So I think big families are great, ideal so come on ladies and let's get started!




look at your thread and reflect...

eventually the reason for your struggle should become evident.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I do like how the term "War" has been attached to this major F***up rather than the proper term which is an illegal invasion of a Sovereign Nation and that is just what it is by World wide accepted legal terms.


Nothing else but illegal and Invasion.

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 29-4-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I couldn't read the whole thing, so please forgive if I'm just repeating somebody else's thoughts.

WHY NOT JUST ADOPT A NON-INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY?

Nobody out there is a threat to us. If we don't interfere (arms under the guise of foreign aid, CIA coups-d'etas, trade protectionism and domestic subsidies, etc.), nobody will hate us and it will be yet more peaceful.

IT"S THAT SIMPLE!



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
wow... you have clearly dedicated a lot of time thinking about how to win the war on terror.

It is such a shame than instead of thinking of other ways to fix the situation you decided to kill 3 generations of terrorists.

What is a terrorist? technically I am a terrorist, just like many others on these forums... would I hurt a living being? well, apart from ants and other insects I might step on by accident there is no much more than I would kill... but if I was given the terrorist label you would not have a problem killing me, right? pretend I was in Iraq for a trip... if the CIA/Intel tells you I am a terrorist (which technically I am as I said) would you check who I am and why I was given the terrorist label? I would highly doubt it, you would have a goal to get rid of terrorism and your desire to achieve this goal will lead you to make some truly evil decisions in order to get it done for a hypothetical view of the greater good.

You are throwing a lot of people under a label to get rid of them, no different than any other mass murderer in the past... a terrorist could be so many innocent people who might just be guilty of something as simple as speaking their mind and in some cases probably being just guilty of being middle eastern looking.

I would be interested in knowing how you would make sure a target is in fact a terrorist... how would you know is not a person that was threatened to join the real terrorists or he and his family would be shot if he refused to? how on earth can you accurately get this information for every potential terrorist before you kill them?

Remember, for every error in judgement your troops make you will probably create more terrorists as the family/friends you wrongly killed will probably seek revenge in some way.

How you counter that? would you kill the family and all of the friends of the guy that was labeled a terrorist but might not necessarily be a threat at all? how would you check who all his relationships are? arab-facebook?



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder
I do like how the term "War" has been attached to this major F***up rather than the proper term which is an illegal invasion of a Sovereign Nation and that is just what it is by World wide accepted legal terms.


Nothing else but illegal and Invasion.

Regards, Iwinder
edit on 29-4-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)


With all due respect we were invited to assist in removing of the Taliban by the then recognised legitimate government of the country. This does not constitute an invasion. .



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Oh, I see the sins of the ICBs who gain from weapons and war. I just see radical Islam as even worse. Two sides to the same coin.


you blame the people that are defending them self's against the dudes that merchandising weapons of mass destruction, and then you give support to actions that are so unnecessary, that are a HUGE waste of funding, go against all human rights, and makes murder acceptable as long as your wearing a uniform????


Don't kid yourselves. The religious nutcases fighting these war, the Taliban and the like, aren't defending themselves against anyone but school age girls from daring to go to school.

Do you think defending these murderous thugs who intentionally blow innocent people up in the markets has a leg to stand on.

These aren't noble warriors defending themselves, they are fanatics spreading terror.

edit on 2-5-2013 by poet1b because: Typo



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Oh, I see the sins of the ICBs who gain from weapons and war. I just see radical Islam as even worse. Two sides to the same coin.


you blame the people that are defending them self's against the dudes that merchandising weapons of mass destruction, and then you give support to actions that are so unnecessary, that are a HUGE waste of funding, go against all human rights, and makes murder acceptable as long as your wearing a uniform????


Don't kid yourselves. The religious nutcases fighting these war, the Taliban and the like, aren't defending themselves against anyone but school age girls from daring to go to school.

Do you think defending these murderous thugs who intentionally blow innocent people up in the markets has a leg to stand on.

These aren't noble warriors defending themselves, they are fanatics spreading terror.

edit on 2-5-2013 by poet1b because: Typo


So your telling me you have been to their country and witnessed all of these terror spreading techniques with your own eyes?

I am done with this post now because it's very sick and disgusting behavior, people thinking about murder and then justifying it is also very dirty behavior. All you people have are propaganda imaging telling you what the world around you is like while you sit and live in a 5 mile radius never stepping one foot outside the box, and the only thing you have to judge this world is someone else's dirty words, and disgusting behavior, wish most of you would grow out of this insane mentality, until then you are the terrorists creating the terror to fight "ghosts" and imaginary boogeyman.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 



My plan is a good plan yes because it is a plan to win the war on terrorists who are waging war on us.
First I must say I haven't read every post because I just don't have the time like some folks do, so if what I have said has already been posed, please forgive.

Mr Peter Dow, your position of more war to end war is playing into the hands of the real enemy's of not just one people, but of all peoples. Your view of who the enemy is, is warped, and misdirected. You seem to want to kill the puppets, but not the puppet masters. Your plan plays directly into the hands of the puppet masters. Your plan also does not address who is paying who. Follow the money.

I'm going to break this down for you, to the simplest terms possible. Who ever owns the money, owns you! What ever "Terrorism" they wish will be carried out by people who have his money in his pocket! What ever "News" you hear, will be told to you by people who have that money in their pockets! What ever story line they want you to believed will be played out by "Actors" with their owners money, in their pocket.

Who's money is in the pockets of those in your plan? And when your plan is complete, who's bank will be put in place?


With any move made by the globalist controllers and their surrogates of the Anglo-American NATO strong arm, it is safe to assume that there is rarely only one reason for the implementation of any given plan. Thus, the wars of conquest and aggression raging in the Middle East, “Eurasia,” and Africa are by no means working toward one purpose alone.
Ever since the invasion of Afghanistan eleven years ago, a small but increasing number of brave journalists, researchers, and activists have been decrying the real reasons for the destruction of entire nations and the tragic loss of life imposed by the hands of NATO and other Anglo-American forces such as the puppet regimes located in the same regions as the target countries. Among these vassal states are the remnants of feudal monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and others.
In the years since the first post-9/11 invasion, “real” reasons have abounded regarding the various countries provided with “democracy” by the United States.
These reasons include vast oil reserves, oil pipelines,[1] opium fields, strategic positioning, no-bid contracts for the defense industry and military-industrial complex, and mineral deposits.
All of these suggestions are both completely valid and accurate.
Yet, as mentioned above, there is rarely only one reason for such an undertaking of military force.

However, there is one reason for military intervention that is rarely discussed, even in the alternative media, in this context – the goal of total domination by the private central banking system.
www.activistpost.com...

Please take some time and reconsider who the real enemy is, before you plunge the world into complete, irreversible domination.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Condi Rice to India. Pakistan a "state sponsor of terror"


"Hindustan Times"
State sponsors of terror have to clean up their act, says Condoleezza

The leadership of countries that practice “embedded terrorism” – state sponsored terrorism – have to be told they must “clean up”, said former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit. The US policy towards state sponsors of terrorism, she said, which includes Pakistan, has been to say “you don’t have an option” about dealing with this terrorism.


Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice speaks during the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit 2013 in New Delhi.

For the full story visit the Hindustan Times website via this link

I do wish Condi would not be so patient with Pakistan. I don't think the world can afford to wait decades for Pakistan to put its own house in order. I don't think the Pakistani politicians are strong enough when faced with an obstinate Pakistani state which sees some purpose in sponsoring terrorism.

I would like in future to hear of Condi recommending that the world take a much tougher approach with Pakistan, an "iron fist" approach, so to speak, led by the US and its NATO allies, and hopefully with India's support, to force Pakistan more quickly to confront the state sponsors of terrorism - generals and former generals of the Pakistani military who dictate military policy behind the scenes in Pakistan.

This could involve suspending aid to Pakistan, international arrest warrants for those state-sponsors of terror Pakistani generals and former generals, raids like the raid to get Bin Laden but against those in the Pakistani state who were sheltering Bin Laden, assassination missions against those terror generals and former generals, more drone attacks, targeted missile or bombing air raids, seizing control over Pakistan's satellite broadcasting to call for the arrest of all involved in sponsoring terror and so on.

I would not heed any complaints from the Pakistani state which is not putting its own house in order. I would not be impressed by any threats Pakistan made about blocking supplies into Afghanistan. We would like the honest people in the Pakistan military to take action against those in the Pakistani military, such as the ISI, who have long been dishonest sponsors of terrorism.

The world needs to pressure Pakistan to make the reality that for the honest Pakistani military it will be an easier course of action to confront their dishonest comrades than daring to confront the rest of the world about any actions we take to raise the pressure on Pakistan.

I would even be prepared to raise military tensions to a level that was last seen in the Cuban missile crisis with US forces on high military alert.

No I would not like to see a nuclear war which would hurt many Pakistani civilians. We love the people of Pakistan but it is in their interests for someone to take a tough stance against the state sponsors of terrorism in Pakistan because that terrorism is, as often as not, turned against the people of Pakistan with their own politicians and leaders being targeted.

The exact measures to be taken are not really my point. Those are up for discussion and modification as required.

My real point is the pressure on Pakistan needs to be stepped up 100 fold by the West led by the US and NATO and with the support of India. No more softly, softly.

This would be my advice to our dearly beloved Condoleezza Rice. No-one inspires me more than she. No-one is better placed to decide on what is good advice and what is not. I trust her judgement but I want her to hear my advice.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Condi: No good & bad Taliban, sceptical of peace talks


Live Mint: There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice
by Elizabeth Roche

There are no good Taliban and bad Taliban: Condoleezza Rice

Pakistan is complicated, Iran is still a problem internationally, opines former US secretary of state



Former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of Taliban to join a reconciliation process.
Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint


As the US and the international community prepare to scale down their military involvement in Afghanistan in 2014 and the Obama administration seeks talks with the Taliban to stabilize the war-torn country, former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has voiced doubts about the readiness of the group to join a reconciliation process. In an interview, Rice said she was "sceptical whether the Taliban can be brought into a peace process".


Thank you Condi once again for trying to save those who will listen from the hell on earth, the sacrifice of our cherished values, the dishonour to all that we hold dear, that would be surrendered in any peace deal with the Taliban.


The AfPak Mission


The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.

The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.

The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.

  • There should be no peace with the Taliban.
  • The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.
  • Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.
  • Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.


The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.

On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.

The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.

The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.
You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.


edit on 21-12-2013 by Mr Peter Dow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow
 




Don't you remember what the Taliban did to Malala Yousafzai?


Maybe you should listen to what she said.



Death begets death To quote JFK
Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join