June 17, 200917 yr There's a post on 4chan that I've replied to that strongly resembles trapical's post from earlier on this page. Keeping a hobby from us trap? :lol: No, the people of 4chan are just getting their info from the same place I am, Fark.com, a site that is usually sort of like Reddit or digg, but with a little more of a loyal community. Fark.com's everyday business is to link to news articles from credible sources and discuss them. Well, with no major news sites covering this, the roles have been reversed. Over thirty thousand members of Fark have devoted extraordinary time and effort into sorting through the thousands of rumors and twitters and youtube videos and everything they find of info they post in the threads. CNN, NPR, NBC, and CBC correspondants then report the news on live TV... often quoting directly from Fark. This is quite insane, Fark is a site that links news articles and talks about them... not the other way around #-o Its truly outstanding, they match 4chan in terms of impact on this world event, but fark is 1/100th the size of 4chan. Latest Fark thread on this issue: Don't bother reading it all, every time you refresh the page another 40 posts appear. Once the thread hits 1500 posts they make a new thread. They are on thread number 15 right now... I actually first heard about 4chan described as the place fark gets all it's funny pictures from. This was back in 2001-2003. Just thought that was an interesting coincidence :) . While I will agree fark is an interesting place to get information, they frequently confuse me about their message. They like to complain about standard mass media news, and Drew Curtis even wrote a book about it. Then they will do the exact thing they are complaining about. They will have sensationalist headlines, report about non-issues (usually something taken out of context that a celebrity said), have generic seasonal topics (weather related usually) and other things. Still I visit fark and digg everyday, usually every time I open up my browser.
June 17, 200917 yr 've been captivated by the uprising in Iran, but not terribly optimistic about its outcome. For a revolution to succeed, it generally needs one of two things to happen: Either it needs its own weapons, or it needs mass defections by the state security forces. There's no evidence that the first could happen. But some scattered evidence of this is starting to appear. Nico Pitney (who has been writing a must-read blog on Iran) writes, "From an Iranian on Twitter: "CONFIRMED by ONE source, police wearing green scarves." Meanwhile Robert Fisk reports: It was interesting that the special forces - who normally take the side of Ahmadinejad's Basij militia - were there with clubs and sticks in their camouflage trousers and their purity white shirts and on this occasion the Iranian military kept them away from Mousavi's men and women. In fact at one point, Mousavi's supporters were shouting 'thank you, thank you' to the soldiers. One woman went up to the special forces men, who normally are very brutal with Mr. Mousavi's supporters, and said 'can you protect us from the Basij?' He said 'with God's help'. It was quite extraordinary because it looked as if the military authorities in Tehran have either taken a decision not to go on supporting the very brutal militia - which is always associated with the presidency here - or individual soldiers have made up their own mind that they're tired of being associated with the kind of brutality that left seven dead yesterday - buried, by the way secretly by the police - and indeed the seven or eight students who were killed on the university campus 24 hours earlier. It's going to take a lot more of this for the revolution to succeed, but this is the kind of thing to look out for. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plan ... -iran.aspx On a slight tangent from this article, it always does shock me when gun nuts who think we need to be prepared to "rebel" against a government who might take us over think they stand a considerable chance against the military. The way, in today's world, to achieve a "revolution" is through non-violence. Looking at the Velvet Revolution to Tiananmen Square to the Orange Revolution to whats happening today in Iran, they're all betting that the security forces will still have humanity left in them, and side with the people, turning against the state. Shooting at them with your own fire arms will only force the state to take more extensive measures to quell the violence, and not win over any of their armed forces.
June 17, 200917 yr A poster on another forum who lives in Tehran, but is now staying in Isfahan, had this to say when another poster asked what the death toll was right now. "Official" is 7. So it's probably quite a bit more. Friends of hurt victims have been stealing their friends out of the hospitals while they were still in bad condition, because if they didn't the Sepah would come and arrest them while they bled out their neck. They figured they'd take their chances saving their friends on their own rather than letting them bleed out in a cell somewhere. Who knows how many have died. It's a giant mess. Jesus christ. The way, in today's world, to achieve a "revolution" is through non-violence. Yeah, there are a lot of videos with literally hundreds of thousands of protesters just marching in complete silence. It's really effective and creepy at the same time. Also, here's an amazing first-hand account from a Boston Globe reporter in Tehran with his wife. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/pol ... patch.html
June 17, 200917 yr Does anyone notice that everytime the U.S. intervenes, they end up getting owned?(korea,vietnam, iraq) But anyways, I think protesting is bad especially in there since people already got hurt. But if Ahmenijad(or however you say it) is overthrown, I will be SO HAPPY. This guy is a pyscho crazy person. Can you believe that he said the Holocaust was fake? And that Americans face more crisis than Iran?
June 17, 200917 yr (korea,vietnam, iraq) Uh, Vietnam you're right, but Iraq we're not sure yet and we won in Korea. Just sayin'. Get back here so I can rub your butt.
June 17, 200917 yr (korea,vietnam, iraq) we won in Korea. No, you fought to a stalemate in Korea. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
June 18, 200917 yr (korea,vietnam, iraq) we won in Korea. No, you fought to a stalemate in Korea. The idea wasn't to conquer NK, though it probably should have been. The goal was to prevent the spread of communism into South Korea, though there was a plan to to keep pushing past the 38th Paralell, there really was no need. Fighting the full force of the Chinese army? No thanks. (at that time they helped NK out to some extent, hopefully not the case in the future) Vietnam was a huge waste, but unlike Vietnam, Iraq did accomplish something when we overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's about it. And it was like 6 years ago. Why the hell are we still there again? Get back here so I can rub your butt.
June 18, 200917 yr [hide=](korea,vietnam, iraq) we won in Korea. No, you fought to a stalemate in Korea.[/hide] The idea wasn't to conquer NK, though it probably should have been. The goal was to prevent the spread of communism into South Korea, though there was a plan to to keep pushing past the 38th Paralell, there really was no need. War with China? No thanks. Vietnam was a huge waste, but unlike Vietnam, Iraq did accomplish something when we overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's about it. And it was like 6 years ago. Why the hell are we still there again? Personally, I don't consider having to negotiate a peace settlement with the North Koreans a victory but we're splitting hairs here really. To me, victory in Korea would have been akin to victory in the 1st Gulf War - repelling and destroying his ability to form another attack for some time and then leaving on your own terms. As for the other two points, I essentially agree with you. ---------------- On topic: There is another big official opposition protest planned for Thursday. This will be interesting as it will show how dedicated the protesters are to their cause and it will be force the government to make a big decision about how to react to the ongoing dissent - I think it may be the crucial day in deciding how things will turn out. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC)
June 18, 200917 yr Does anyone notice that everytime the U.S. intervenes, they end up getting owned?(korea,vietnam, iraq) But anyways, I think protesting is bad especially in there since people already got hurt. But if Ahmenijad(or however you say it) is overthrown, I will be SO HAPPY. This guy is a pyscho crazy person. Can you believe that he said the Holocaust was fake? And that Americans face more crisis than Iran? Now, I'm not one to condone violent actions at all usually, but in this case the deaths of civilians play a pretty important role in making the Iranian people even more determined to protest and fight their country's oppressive regime. Removing Ahmedinejad would make little difference, it's the Ayatollah that needs to be overthrown; the entire bloody regime needs a massive overhaul. Also, "protesting is bad"? Look at how dumb you are. And why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized?
June 18, 200917 yr And why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized? I was going to say the same thing, this has nothing whatsoever to do with America, Here somebody will probably say 'but the people are protesting for a pro-western President', No they aren't, I doubt hardly any of the protestors have this going through their heads. This is a totally internal affair, and any outside interferance will more than likely do more harm than good. These people want to live in a fiar country, and that is what they are protesting about, they want their views to count, and their votes to count, which didn't happen. On the topic of violence, yes non-violent is the way to go, but in my opinion, i know it sounds gruesome, but you NEED some protestors to die at the hands of the 'corrupt and oppressive' enemy to really have the revolution take hold, nothing will get your fellow countrymen, and even rival supporters to change sides than seeing the true face of the enemy (the Iranian Leadership in this case). Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^
June 18, 200917 yr And why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized? Yup. On topic: I really hope that the Iranian people can pull this off. They deserve better than rigged elections and dictatorship. Everyone does. I'm glad they're willing to stand up for themselves. They have my full support obviously. [bleep] the law, they can eat my dick that's word to Pimp
June 18, 200917 yr And why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized? Yes. It's [bleep]ing annoying, isn't it? Be glad you don't live here and have to deal with this constant obsession with what's good for America. Here's Yglesias making that point: Thanks to John McCains campaign finance reform legislation it was a bit difficult for me, legally speaking, to state this point clearly back during the campaign but now that were not within the BCRA window of any election hes participating in we can say clearly that the guy is a dangerous madman whose ideas would risk incredibly suffering and destruction around the world. Just saying. His twitterview today with Jake Tapper is full of examples as he talks about Iran not so much as an actual country full of actual people doing actual things in a difficult situation, but instead as a kind of phantasmagoric canvass onto which we should paint a tableau of American hubris and militarism. But nothing sums it up better than this Tweet: @jaketapper no prediction, but if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail. But this regime has tight control. Thats right. Whether or not the Iranian people prevail depends on how steadfast we are. How steadfast we are in what? In wishing them well? In tweeting mean things about the Iranian security services? Of course what Americans do isnt totally irrelevant, but its unquestionably a peripheral factor in this drama. Iran is a country populated by Iranians, and their fate is primarily in their own hands. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archi ... n-iran.php
June 18, 200917 yr Author If anyone is interested here is a collection of direct twitter feeds from the remaining trusted sources. If anything happens, this is how the world will find out: http://tweetgrid.com/grid?l=9&q1=from:m ... ction&an=n Also, here is a 1st person account of what happens to protesters that are taken away. PG-13
June 18, 200917 yr Author Does anyone notice that everytime the U.S. intervenes, they end up getting owned?(korea,vietnam, iraq) But anyways, I think protesting is bad especially in there since people already got hurt. But if Ahmenijad(or however you say it) is overthrown, I will be SO HAPPY. This guy is a pyscho crazy person. Can you believe that he said the Holocaust was fake? And that Americans face more crisis than Iran? You only hear about the failures. Here's a short list of US interventions since WW2. World War II Korean Berlin Blockade, 1948 (not a shooting war, but it was the US military intervening with another country) Albania 1952 Korean War 1950 Vietnam 1960 Dominican Civil War 1965 Trinidadian Rebellion 1970 Mayaguez Incident: Cambodia 1975 Peace Village Incident 1976 Dominican Electoral Intervention 1978 Jonestown, Guyana 1978 US Ambassador: Afghanistan 1979 Strait of Hormuz Incident 1988 Libyan Fighters Incident 1989 US Invasion of Panama 1989 Persian Gulf War 1990-91 U.S. Occupation of Haiti 1994 Kosovo 1999 Afganistan 2001 Iraq 2003 Vietnam was a failure, but Korea was pretty much a success in a sense. North Korea was invading South Korea with the attempt to take it over by force, the US intervened and the final result was the South Korea remained free. Iraq on the other hand, we don't know if it is a success yet. A lot of people give the US crap like "the US military can't even beat a small country, they suck." or "Why are they still there anyway, they want to take it over". *sigh* People, it would have been hella easy for the US to go in, destroy Saddam's regime and leave. Thats whats 99.9% of countries do when they declare war. Hitler, Genghis Kahn, the Spartans, etc all take over the government and move on. Its quick, its easy, its the way war works. The United States however chooses to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives of its servicemen to build schools, train the police, repair the roads, build hospitals, and ensure the safety of the population. I really don't get all the hate on the US for "still being in Iraq". Would the world really prefer if we just left the place in chaos? Should we have been there in the first place, No. But now that we're there the US is doing the right thing, and at great expense. Why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized? We have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting wars in the two countries... on either side of Iran. The current regime in Iran is the sole supplier of IEDs, RPG-7s, and other gear for the insurgencies in both counties. The current regime in Iran has been funding and supplying our only enemies in this war. If the Iran regime falls, yes that would be absurdly fantastic for the Iranians, but it would also be a HUGE victory for the United States and its War on Terror. Are the new protesters and their political figures pro-Western? Not exactly but they have been chanting "Obama give us our freedom" and "down with the dictador, we want democracy". This would be a nice change from the current regime which states "We will wipe Israel off the map" and "Iran should be a nuclear power". Lastly, this is a group of people trying to revolt against an oppressive and corrupt dictatorship, they want democracy. The United States consider's itself the "world's oldest (continuous) democracy" and thus its patriots and leaders are greatly interested in hearing about the spread of democracy by others. We have fought wars near and far, and if a democratic country gets invaded by a dictatorship, the United States will defend the democracy. We don't want to interfere in another people's revolution (Obama intelligently agrees with this thought) but we will stand on the sidelines and give them moral support and cross our fingers.
June 18, 200917 yr As a little side note, I've found that in previous discussions it's a little more politically correct and tolerable to say "the US/[nation of citizenship]" rather than "we." As an adult citizen of the United States, yes, I understand that I am a part of this nation, but "I" am not the one pulling the strings, "I" and not the one going to war, hell, "I" wasn't alive for half the stuff I discuss here. It's honestly clear that there is no narcissistic intention in the usage of the first person, but the ego-vibe still exists regardless. No offense or anything to anyone, just putting it out there. Also, the US owned in Vietnam, check out casuality statistics and the history of the war. Support just wained too much because the president was trying to expand welfare and all that while trying to fund a war at the same time, a big no-no. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
June 18, 200917 yr [hide=]Does anyone notice that everytime the U.S. intervenes, they end up getting owned?(korea,vietnam, iraq) But anyways, I think protesting is bad especially in there since people already got hurt. But if Ahmenijad(or however you say it) is overthrown, I will be SO HAPPY. This guy is a pyscho crazy person. Can you believe that he said the Holocaust was fake? And that Americans face more crisis than Iran? You only hear about the failures. Here's a short list of US interventions since WW2. World War II Korean Berlin Blockade, 1948 (not a shooting war, but it was the US military intervening with another country) Albania 1952 Korean War 1950 Vietnam 1960 Dominican Civil War 1965 Trinidadian Rebellion 1970 Mayaguez Incident: Cambodia 1975 Peace Village Incident 1976 Dominican Electoral Intervention 1978 Jonestown, Guyana 1978 US Ambassador: Afghanistan 1979 Strait of Hormuz Incident 1988 Libyan Fighters Incident 1989 US Invasion of Panama 1989 Persian Gulf War 1990-91 U.S. Occupation of Haiti 1994 Kosovo 1999 Afganistan 2001 Iraq 2003 Vietnam was a failure, but Korea was pretty much a success in a sense. North Korea was invading South Korea with the attempt to take it over by force, the US intervened and the final result was the South Korea remained free. Iraq on the other hand, we don't know if it is a success yet. A lot of people give the US crap like "the US military can't even beat a small country, they suck." or "Why are they still there anyway, they want to take it over". *sigh* People, it would have been hella easy for the US to go in, destroy Saddam's regime and leave. Thats whats 99.9% of countries do when they declare war. Hitler, Genghis Kahn, the Spartans, etc all take over the government and move on. Its quick, its easy, its the way war works. The United States however chooses to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives of its servicemen to build schools, train the police, repair the roads, build hospitals, and ensure the safety of the population. I really don't get all the hate on the US for "still being in Iraq". Would the world really prefer if we just left the place in chaos? Should we have been there in the first place, No. But now that we're there the US is doing the right thing, and at great expense. Why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized? We have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting wars in the two countries... on either side of Iran. The current regime in Iran is the sole supplier of IEDs, RPG-7s, and other gear for the insurgencies in both counties. The current regime in Iran has been funding and supplying our only enemies in this war. If the Iran regime falls, yes that would be absurdly fantastic for the Iranians, but it would also be a HUGE victory for the United States and its War on Terror. Are the new protesters and their political figures pro-Western? Not exactly but they have been chanting "Obama give us our freedom" and "down with the dictador, we want democracy". This would be a nice change from the current regime which states "We will wipe Israel off the map" and "Iran should be a nuclear power". Lastly, this is a group of people trying to revolt against an oppressive and corrupt dictatorship, they want democracy. The United States consider's itself the "world's oldest (continuous) democracy" and thus its patriots and leaders are greatly interested in hearing about the spread of democracy by others. We have fought wars near and far, and if a democratic country gets invaded by a dictatorship, the United States will defend the democracy. We don't want to interfere in another people's revolution (Obama intelligently agrees with this thought) but we will stand on the sidelines and give them moral support and cross our fingers.[/hide] What he said The only thing I would note is that calling Iran the sole supplier of the listed weapons is probably innacurate, a better choice would be primary supplier. Secondly, americans are hardly being self centered in concering themselves over how this unrest in iran affects them. The possibility of a very anti western country having a revolution is very relevant to american foreign policy. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
June 18, 200917 yr I found an IRC channel dedicated to the protest: server: irc.anonnet.org channel: #iran Don't be fooled by the title of the server, they are not affiliated with 4chan. Many of the people in the room are actually Iranians themselves, so it makes it interesting to get some first-hand opinions and experience. But due to anonymity in the channel, asking anyone if they are from Iran is prohibited. [iNSERT "I R EATIN TEH SHIX ATM" BILL COSBY SIGNATURE GIF HERE, LOL]
June 18, 200917 yr Author FLASH traffic, Mousavi (the opposition leader) gave a speech, PersianKiwi manged to get a transcript of it out on Twitter. Highlights: - I have come to bring to Iran a future of freedom and democracy. - I have come to improve Iranian International relations - I have come to be accountable to you my people and to make Iran accountable for its actions in this world - [sic] The world and the internet have been supportive of our struggle, I ask the symbol of the Internet, GOOGLE, to change logo to green for 1 day - We will not falter, the World is with us.
June 18, 200917 yr he invoked the one true god google On topic While in many ways a revolt seems like a good solution, my main concern is what would form out of such a rebellion. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
June 18, 200917 yr People bring up the US because it is the most likely to interfere militarily in other countries' business (for good or bad). Also the US is at "war" (did congress ever actually declare war?) with Afghanistan directly to the east of Iran and at Iraq directly to the west.
June 18, 200917 yr People bring up the US because it is the most likely to interfere militarily in other countries' business (for good or bad). Also the US is at "war" (did congress ever actually declare war?) with Afghanistan directly to the east of Iran and at Iraq directly to the west. Im not sure if it is a formal war, but the congress has authorized the use of military force(president has 60 days before he needs approval for military intervention). We arent at war with afghanistan or Iraq, we are at war with the taliban who are in afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq. Just wanted to clarify this because there is a noteable difference between fighting a country and a terrorist group. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
June 18, 200917 yr We're not at war WITH those countries though, we're at war IN them. I just needed to clear that up (though I think it's what you meant). Anyway, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to report to Congress after sending troops into a combat situation, but every president since then excluding Obama has broken that law. Get back here so I can rub your butt.
June 18, 200917 yr We're not at war WITH those countries though, we're at war IN them. I just needed to clear that up (though I think it's what you meant). Anyway, the War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to report to Congress after sending troops into a combat situation, but every president since then excluding Obama has broken that law. Im pretty sure george bush announced iraq and afghanistan, am I missing something? Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
June 18, 200917 yr Does anyone notice that everytime the U.S. intervenes, they end up getting owned?(korea,vietnam, iraq) But anyways, I think protesting is bad especially in there since people already got hurt. But if Ahmenijad(or however you say it) is overthrown, I will be SO HAPPY. This guy is a pyscho crazy person. Can you believe that he said the Holocaust was fake? And that Americans face more crisis than Iran? You only hear about the failures. Here's a short list of US interventions since WW2. World War II Korean Berlin Blockade, 1948 (not a shooting war, but it was the US military intervening with another country) Albania 1952 Korean War 1950 Vietnam 1960 Dominican Civil War 1965 Trinidadian Rebellion 1970 Mayaguez Incident: Cambodia 1975 Peace Village Incident 1976 Dominican Electoral Intervention 1978 Jonestown, Guyana 1978 US Ambassador: Afghanistan 1979 Strait of Hormuz Incident 1988 Libyan Fighters Incident 1989 US Invasion of Panama 1989 Persian Gulf War 1990-91 U.S. Occupation of Haiti 1994 Kosovo 1999 Afganistan 2001 Iraq 2003 Vietnam was a failure, but Korea was pretty much a success in a sense. North Korea was invading South Korea with the attempt to take it over by force, the US intervened and the final result was the South Korea remained free. Iraq on the other hand, we don't know if it is a success yet. A lot of people give the US crap like "the US military can't even beat a small country, they suck." or "Why are they still there anyway, they want to take it over". *sigh* People, it would have been hella easy for the US to go in, destroy Saddam's regime and leave. Thats whats 99.9% of countries do when they declare war. Hitler, Genghis Kahn, the Spartans, etc all take over the government and move on. Its quick, its easy, its the way war works. The United States however chooses to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives of its servicemen to build schools, train the police, repair the roads, build hospitals, and ensure the safety of the population. I really don't get all the hate on the US for "still being in Iraq". Would the world really prefer if we just left the place in chaos? Should we have been there in the first place, No. But now that we're there the US is doing the right thing, and at great expense. Why do Americans keep bringing up their own country in this debate? It's in every other post I read. Are you guys really that centralized? We have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting wars in the two countries... on either side of Iran. The current regime in Iran is the sole supplier of IEDs, RPG-7s, and other gear for the insurgencies in both counties. The current regime in Iran has been funding and supplying our only enemies in this war. If the Iran regime falls, yes that would be absurdly fantastic for the Iranians, but it would also be a HUGE victory for the United States and its War on Terror. Are the new protesters and their political figures pro-Western? Not exactly but they have been chanting "Obama give us our freedom" and "down with the dictador, we want democracy". This would be a nice change from the current regime which states "We will wipe Israel off the map" and "Iran should be a nuclear power". Lastly, this is a group of people trying to revolt against an oppressive and corrupt dictatorship, they want democracy. The United States consider's itself the "world's oldest (continuous) democracy" and thus its patriots and leaders are greatly interested in hearing about the spread of democracy by others. We have fought wars near and far, and if a democratic country gets invaded by a dictatorship, the United States will defend the democracy. We don't want to interfere in another people's revolution (Obama intelligently agrees with this thought) but we will stand on the sidelines and give them moral support and cross our fingers. Azvareth, don't call me dumb, thats why your from sweden. YOU WOULDNT KNOW....Americans intervene because of your stupid european socialist countries and because of communists. the world wouldn't have to be like this if we didnt have communist leaders and "terrorists" and socialists. And dude, you know that they provoked war so we went to afghanistan. The other things you basically said were incidents and they were not major, i meant major wars.
June 18, 200917 yr Azvareth, don't call me dumb, thats why your from sweden. YOU WOULDNT KNOW....Americans intervene because of your stupid european socialist countries and because of communists. the world wouldn't have to be like this if we didnt have communist leaders and "terrorists" and socialists. And dude, you know that they provoked war so we went to afghanistan. The other things you basically said were incidents and they were not major, i meant major wars. No offense, but have you ever even set foot inside a history class room? [bleep] the law, they can eat my dick that's word to Pimp
Create an account or sign in to comment