Can the war on terror be won?

by Charlatan Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

If we look at the war on terror, which has spread between afghanistan, iraq, libya and pakistan, we will find many renewable sources of conflict. If the west was to leave the areas, and the state was to leave them alone, there would be peace. The whole fact that they are there is the cause of the war, and the involvement of the countries in these fights would see them fight because they are being sought.

So what would happen if the near east was to leave the militants alone? I think pakistan already has sharia law, so they could just leave them alone and watch the peace flow. The exceptions are areas where they have christians and muslims living close together.

If we were to give them sharia law in africa, the christians wouldn;t mind that much. It is just stricter morality, with laws keeping the stricter morality in place.

What should be done to end the war on terror?

by True Blue Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:41 am

On man's terrorism is another man's just cause.

by ROB Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:30 am

True Blue wrote:
One man's terrorism is another man's just cause.

I disagree. If your comment were slightly rewritten, "One man's 'terrorism' is another man's just cause", I might agree depending on the specific instance.

al qaida terrorism is no man's just cause. On the same level of heinousness, but far more localized, IRA terrorism is no man's just cause. Any terrorism that targets others because of "race", ethnicity, or religion is no man's just cause.

Mau Mau and Jomo Kenyatta? Perhaps to a degree. I'd need more information.

by True Blue Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:51 am

RockOnBrother wrote:Any terrorism that targets others because of "race", ethnicity, or religion is no man's just cause.

The twentieth century was just one race war after another... the most violent century in the history of man. It also marks the rise of the Orient, having been previously subjugated by The West. So your morality, although valid, has no place in reality which defies you.

by witchfinder Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:24 am

Solving problems and disputes is not about self interest, it is about making the world a better place for everyone.

Yes we are all appauled, shocked and sadened at the terror attacks on the United States on 11th September 2001, but I have to point out that sometimes the rest of the world gets the impression from America that the attacks of 911 is the only attrocity that matters.

In the past 25 years 8,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed in the conflict with Israel including 1,600 children.

Over 1500 Israeli civilians have been killed in the past 25 years including 142 children.

The number of civilian injuries on both sides runs into thousands in just the last 5 years, and tens of thousands over the past 25 years.

And guess what ?

If the conflict continues on, if there is no progress towards resolving the issue, if Israel continues to build towns in lands that it captured and occupied, and if there is no two state solution; In another 25 years from now there will be another 10,000 civilian deaths, and thousands more injuries.

by True Blue Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:37 am

People treat these racial wars as though they are something new... but again... we have had 100 years of race wars... there is nothing new in this... it is just a continuation.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:51 am

100 years you think? I suggest it all started when the Hunter-Gatherers settled in one place to cultivate vegetables and keep domestic animals.

Man however still has that irresistible instinct to go out and kill something (or somebody).

by True Blue Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:52 am

oftenwrong wrote:100 years you think? I suggest it all started when the Hunter-Gatherers settled in one place to cultivate vegetables and keep domestic animals.

Man however still has that irresistible instinct to go out and kill something (or somebody).

I was talking about racial wars/ ethnic cleansing and not territorial wars. As I pointed out... this last 100 years has been the most racially violent of any other epoch in history... and given that, I am surprised at the sense of surprise and disappointment being shown here as though racial wars are something new on the scene.

Millions have annihilated or been displaced and dispossessed because of their race. In fact, the early twentieth century introduced morally repugnant and scientifically fraudulent theories of race no less.

It is no surprise that it continues on into the 21st century.

by ROB Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:41 pm

When terrorists target all who are unlike them in "race", ethnicity, religion, beliefs, etc., as do al qaida terrorists, their terrorism takes on bestiality with which negotiation and compromise is impossible for people of decency.

General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, SHAEF (Supreme Head Allied Expeditionary Force) refused to accord Nazi beasts any civility whatsoever. No receiving of swords, none of the customary pomp, ceremony, and indications of mutual respect between warriors such as that exchanged between Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. grant at Appomattox. As more and more Jewish extermination camps were unveiled, this attitude filtered down to the field commanders. An older friend who viewed extermination camps with sub-eighty pound survivors within still has a hard time describing what he saw and smelled.

Decency cannot accommodate bestiality. Eisenhower in Europe, and Nimitz and MacArthur in the Pacific, got it right. Unconditional surrender.

by witchfinder Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:57 pm

Perhaps I am the odd one out

I support a Palestinian homeland, a free Palestine, but I am not anti-Jewish or opposed to a free Israel which ought to be able to exist in peace.

But unfortunately it is Israel which is the main obstacle to middle east peace, the way in which Palesinian / Arab people in the occupied teritories are treated is no different to how black South Africans were treated under apartheid, and thats wrong.

The way in which the Israeli authorities treat Palestinians can be compared to how the Nazis treated Jews in the Warsaw ghettos, there realy is not much difference.

by trevorw2539 Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:54 pm

Perhaps I am the odd one out

Witchfinder.

I agree. Though I understand some of the Jewish hesitance in their attitude, perhaps due to their previous experiences as a nation. That's not meant as an excuse for them.

by True Blue Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:32 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
When terrorists target all who are unlike them in "race", ethnicity, religion, beliefs, etc., as do al qaida terrorists, their terrorism takes on bestiality with which negotiation and compromise is impossible for people of decency.

General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, SHAEF (Supreme Head Allied Expeditionary Force) refused to accord Nazi beasts any civility whatsoever. No receiving of swords, none of the customary pomp, ceremony, and indications of mutual respect between warriors such as that exchanged between Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. grant at Appomattox. As more and more Jewish extermination camps were unveiled, this attitude filtered down to the field commanders. An older friend who viewed extermination camps with sub-eighty pound survivors within still has a hard time describing what he saw and smelled.

Decency cannot accommodate bestiality. Eisenhower in Europe, and Nimitz and MacArthur in the Pacific, got it right. Unconditional surrender.

And all was silent during the Greek genocide and exodus in Turkey of 1914 - 1923. The Greeks had been on the Turkish coast since the 8th Century BCE... yet where was the European/ American outcry, the defence?

It's all well and good to claim the Allied forces were a force against genocide, but they weren't really... that was just an add on, feel good, back patting exercise. And remember... whilst we were fighting against genocide (cough and splutter) the allied forces were depicting the Japanese as monkeys... not the first time we've done that either.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:21 pm

"And all was silent during the Greek genocide and exodus in Turkey of 1914 - 1923. The Greeks had been on the Turkish coast since the 8th Century BCE... yet where was the European/ American outcry, the defence?"

That's an interesting version of History, True Blue. Is it uniquely your own or can you refer to original source material?

by Charlatan Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:42 am

If there must be peace, seeing as how there cannot be a win by the west or states there, they must cede to the militants. They want some decent ideas and zero tax on banking, as formulated by mohammed.

If the presidency calls itself moslem, they should want the same things. Why don't the militants kill the presidents? They could make a way by wiping out replaceable presidents, presidents today have forgotten what it means to be a president for the people, now only being a president for power rushes and money.

They want to have more social activities, and you could argue these are human rights! Sharia is not against human rights, but defines it. The united nations should get involved then, granting them these rights by court order. This will see the voilence stop.

by oftenwrong Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:09 am

Ideology always takes precedence over logical thought. Human Rights are not a consideration where different people have totally different beliefs from each other's.

"MY Belief" is threatened if you don't share it.

by ROB Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:55 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
When terrorists target all who are unlike them in "race", ethnicity, religion, beliefs, etc., as do al qaida terrorists, their terrorism takes on bestiality with which negotiation and compromise is impossible for people of decency.

General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, SHAEF (Supreme Head Allied Expeditionary Force) refused to accord Nazi beasts any civility whatsoever. No receiving of swords, none of the customary pomp, ceremony, and indications of mutual respect between warriors such as that exchanged between Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. grant at Appomattox. As more and more Jewish extermination camps were unveiled, this attitude filtered down to the field commanders. An older friend who viewed extermination camps with sub-eighty pound survivors within still has a hard time describing what he saw and smelled.

Decency cannot accommodate bestiality. Eisenhower in Europe, and Nimitz and MacArthur in the Pacific, got it right. Unconditional surrender.

True Blue wrote:
And all was silent during the Greek genocide and exodus in Turkey of 1914 - 1923. The Greeks had been on the Turkish coast since the 8th Century BCE... yet where was the European/ American outcry, the defence?

Four questions:

In what way was this genocide?
In what way was terrorism involved?
What you have had the European powers do? Britain and France were worn out, Germany was whipped, and Austria-Hungary was defunct.
How would you have jostler America USV out of its isolationism? The U.S. didn’t even ratify membership on the League of Nations.

True Blue wrote:
It's all well and good to claim the Allied forces were a force against genocide

It’s not just a claim; it’s also fact.

True Blue wrote:
but they weren't really...

They were really. Ask a extermination camp surivivor.

True Blue wrote:
that was just an add on, feel good, back patting exercise.

Nope.

True Blue wrote:
And remember... whilst we were fighting against genocide (cough and splutter) the allied forces were depicting the Japanese as monkeys...

Genocide in action, courtesy of the Empire of Japan: The Nanking Massacre or The Nanjing Massacre, also known as The Rape of Nanking (please click and read).

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-U1002-502%2C_Japanisch-Chinesischer_Krieg

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-U1002-502%2C_Japanisch-Chinesischer_Krieg

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Nanking_bodies_1937

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Chinese_head%2C_Nanking_massacre

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Nanjing_Massacre_rape_killed

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Horrible_death%2C_Nanking_Massacre

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Can the war on terror be won? - Page 2 Chinese_to_be_beheaded_in_Nanking_Massacre

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.

Photos from Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

by Charlatan Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:30 pm

I hear the taliban is ready to talk. Talking is good, as it ends the death and is a quicker resolution made to the armed conflict by the taliban especially - this war would go on forever.

If the people want to fight for something, and want to see it at all, or at least in their lifetime, there needs to be a resolution. If there were laws created for the sake of ending the war, and we have already discussed that there is hardly any changes made, then why not do it sooner?

On the other hand, people joining the taliban are becoming less 'old school' with their approach to killing. They do not want to kill people anymore, as they do not want to see people die by their hands. If you believe that they do, how different are they to you? Are they mad? Are they silly in the head? I believe that they have morals just like the rest of us.

Now, if they want to see a better society, they should stop and lead with a good example. If they keep killing people they disagree with, then there will be no good example. Showing that the killing will stop if they get their way to a point, is a lot of hope 'added to the pot.'

By the by, what is the punishement for killing under sharia law? Well I have no doubt it is being killed, so they will all answer for this crime in heaven one day! If they were to kill now and see what is going on later, they could be in a lot of trouble. Blowing someone up in a market is not holy, blowing up a bank is not holy, and blowing up police people is also not holy. Working is holy though, and they do not work! They shoudl all try to get jobs and find a new way to protest their way of life to all the world.

Now what do they want? They want lawful morality. This leads away from the way things are in the west, so, they will naturally fight it.

If you were to ask a conservative if they would support sharia law, they would laugh. If you asked a conservative if they would like lawful morality, they would be inererested. Same thing.

Now with leaving the war behind them, they could see no terrorists coming to the west as they do not have a support base there. There is absolutely no danger with leaving the war as it is and heading home.

The danger comes from the militants left behind and their desire to change the way things are. How many people feel the same way? I suggest a day of showing your hand on saturday or something where they all walk into the street and get counted those for these changes. This will give the leaders a good indication of how much they will benefit by giving in.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:23 pm

Lots of bleeding hearts emoting all over this topic, as might be expected.

There is no "solution" to terrorism, because terrorists don't see themselves as such. They are wholly convinced of the righteousness of their Cause.

There are only two ways out, genocide or negotiation. God alone knows why people find it so difficult to talk to each other.

by bobby Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:30 pm

Ultimately the war on terror can not be won with force it will take diplomacy, a part of diplomacy is to listen to what the other side have to say, so to that end, you sometimes have to give them a bit of a slap to get their full attention.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:52 pm

Quite so. When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. Unfortunately History reminds us that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan continue largely as they did before Western-imposed slapping.

by ROB Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:41 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
There is no "solution" to terrorism, because terrorists don't see themselves as such. They are wholly convinced of the righteousness of their Cause.

There is one solution: Dead terrorists.

by bobby Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:49 pm

Roc. I have just looked at your post re the Nanking Massacre, and it must have been horrific for those on the receiving end, but weren’t the Japs doing to the Chinese what they had in fact learnt from them in the Japanese, China war previously. I’m not for one minute trying to make excuses for the barbarism, just making a point.

by ROB Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:29 pm

Bobby,

In the 1200s (I believe) Kublai Khan, the Mongol emperor who had conquered and was then in control of China, attempted to invade Japan. A fierce wind, the kamikaze, destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet. To the best of my knowledge, that was the last, and possibly only, serious attempt to invade the Japanese home islands.

If this is correct, and I believe it is, the planned US-UK invasion at the tail end of WWII, averted by Truman's decision to "drop the damn thing", would in fact have been the first invasion of the Japanese home islands by foreign troops in modern history. Now mind you, I've not delved into the ancient roots of Japan, so this is what I believe, not what I know to a certainty.

Mt point is that in modern times, Japan has been the invader, not the invaded. I'm not sure what Chinese troops did to Japanese troops, but I do know that (1) Chinese troops did nothing to Japanese civilians, and (2) whatever Chinese troops did to Japanese troops was done on Chinese soil.

I'm not a great fan of Japanese culture. As of 2005, I know for a fact that racism is the norm in Japan. I suspect that Japanese troops in Nanking viewed the Chinese civilians as just s many inferior beings in their way rather than as fellow humans, but that's just my suspicion.

by Shirina Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:03 pm

I'm not a great fan of Japanese culture. As of 2005, I know for a fact that racism is the norm in Japan. I suspect that Japanese troops in Nanking viewed the Chinese civilians as just s many inferior beings in their way rather than as fellow humans, but that's just my suspicion.

It's not just your suspicion, Rock. You are dead-bang accurate. However, it goes beyond racism. Japanese military recruits were trained via dehumanization. They were not only trained to view non-Japanese as inferior, but also that their own lives meant nothing. This went a long way toward creating a mentality that murder, torture, and rape were acceptable as long as they were done against inferior races and nationalities. Their vision of Americans as blood thirsty savages spurred them to fight harder against us. Accounts from the few Japanese who surrendered to the US forces spent a lot of time expressing their shock and surprise when they were fed and treated by their American enemies.

This dehumanization often backfired since it meant subordinate officers had the courage to disobey or even countermand the orders of superiors. Yamashita, for instance, did order that Allied prisoners be treated humanely, but his subordinates ignored the order, and Yamashita ignored their disobedience. Hence Yamashita was one of those hanged for war crimes. It is often thought that the Japanese military was highly disciplined, but it wasn't. You can't turn men into barbarians and then expect them to behave like soldiers.

by ROB Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:32 pm

Shirina,

So Yamashita kind of got the short end of the stick? Interesting.

On Okinawa circa 2005, it was reported to me that the signs on many Okinawan business establishments read something like "No dogs, No Americans." And it seems that this was the tip of the iceberg, as Okinawans are viewed as inferior beings by Kyoto Japanese and vice versa. I've spoken with a few Koreans who had lived in Japan, and their stories of being treated like vermin made me perceptibly sick at the stomach.

by Shirina Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:56 pm

So Yamashita kind of got the short end of the stick? Interesting.

In a way, yes ... but in the Western military (which was far more disciplined that the Japanese military), the superior officer is ultimately responsible for the behavior of his troops. Unfortunately superior officers rarely took action against insubordinate commanders out of fear of being labeled too soft, too weak, or unpatriotic. Yes, Yamashita gave the order, but he never bothered to enforce it.

In another instance, Yamashita ordered all Japanese troops out of Manila to avoid destroying the city ... but his unit commanders disobeyed and actually moved troops into the city. MacArthur at first banned the use of artillery in Manila to preserve the art and architecture - and to minimize civilian casualties. But after awhile, the US casualties started to rack up, so MacArthur had to take the gloves off the big guns. This resulted in the total destruction of Manila. MacArthur said that only Warsaw had suffered more devastation than Manila. The Japanese disobedience resulted in this destruction and the deaths of over 100,000 civilians. But again, Yamashita was the one in charge, so he was given the blame.

by astra Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:39 pm

I am sure Shirina, that I could sit opposite you, with a bottle of Malt between us on the table, and no matter how long the discussion, the top would not come off the bottle!!

NO! Not 'crawling' or 'stooping' but your posts are just something else!!

Hoping you are not in too much pain

D

by trevorw2539 Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:57 pm

Quote from Astra.

I am sure Shirina, that I could sit opposite you, with a bottle of Malt between us on the table, and no matter how long the discussion, the top would not come off the bottle!!

Please can I eavesdrop. Embarassed

I enjoy reading your posts, though I comment little. My interests have been in a different direction, so I learn from your posts on different subjects.
By the way, sorry if you are ill Shirina. Hope all goes well

by ROB Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:50 pm

Shirina,

These details are not normally presented. I would appreciate as much as you care to post on this topic. There are several folks who served in WWII who’ve told me that Japanese atrocities in many instances far outstripped Nazi atrocities. One of these gentlemen steered me to the Rape of Nanking, years after I studied history formally, saying that, for some reason, study of Japanese atrocities has been almost swept under the rug in our curricula. I can attest to that.

by **astradt1** Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:54 pm

I wonder what WWII atrocities have to do with the current 'War on Terrorism' and wheather it can be won?

by ROB Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:41 am

astradt1 wrote:
I wonder what WWII atrocities have to do with the current 'War on Terrorism' and wheather it can be won?

Quite a bit. You might start by researching the WWII Nazi connection to Islamafascism.

by oftenwrong Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:29 am

The History of Man's inhumanity to Man begins a lot earlier than WWII.
Though probably not the very first example, the story of Cain and Abel goes back a bit.

by bobby Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:33 pm

Yeah and that poor geezer Adam, he wot ad is rib ripped out.

by Shirina Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:08 pm

I am sure Shirina, that I could sit opposite you, with a bottle of Malt between us on the table, and no matter how long the discussion, the top would not come off the bottle!!

Oh, I have no doubt of that, Rock. Although how much Malt I could drink before I collapse into a fit of giggles and fall off my chair ... hmmm. Very Happy

These details are not normally presented.

Nope, they're not. You have to go outside the classroom to find the really juicy stuff. It's a shame, though, because the omitted facts are often the spice that makes an otherwise bland story quite intriguing.

There are several folks who served in WWII who’ve told me that Japanese atrocities in many instances far outstripped Nazi atrocities.

Quite right. In fact, the Nazis (of all people) were so horrified at the behavior of their allies that, if memory serves, either Ribbentrop or Hitler himself, sent a message of protest. Hitler receives most of the attention for his evil antics because of how systematic it was. The Nazis created an entire industry and business (yes, camp commandants made tons of money) out of murder. The Japanese simply acted like barbarians, but the actions of the Nazis were cold, calculating, and premeditated. What you hear even less about is Stalin and the Red Army. You can find more about the Rape of Nanking than you will about the Rape of Berlin, in fact, the rape of Germany. As one noted scholar, Stephen Ambrose said (paraphrased): The proposed zones of control negotiated among the Allies was somehow leaked to the general public, including the Germans. Thus the drive of German civilians to get out of the Soviet zone before it was locked down created the "largest mass migration in human history." Some estimates put the total at 20 million refugees. They knew what was coming - wholesale rape, slaughter, and looting by the Red Army. Stalin himself issued a general statement to his troops: "Only the unborn are innocent."

for some reason, study of Japanese atrocities has been almost swept under the rug in our curricula

Probably because Japan is now a strong ally of the West. What's even more disturbing is how the Japanese are not teaching their students much about WWII. I've looked at some books about Hiroshima and Nagasaki published for children, and one would think that America dropped bombs on a peaceful, agrarian nation just minding its own business! This is unfortunate because it has the potential to foster anti-West feelings among the up-and-coming generations. Even now there is some resistance by Japanese youths to the idea of the US having a port of call for its Navy in Japan. The Japanese military knows better, and they are still smarting from their defeat all these years later. One high-ranking Japanese admiral (whose name I can't remember offhand because Japanese names are hard to remember LOL!) said something to the effect of: "The best course for national survival is not to go to war with the United States, and the best way to do that is to become friends with the United States."

by Shirina Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:10 pm

I wonder what WWII atrocities have to do with the current 'War on Terrorism' and wheather it can be won?

Yes, OW, we are a bit off topic. If you'd like, we can take this to the "History Channel" thread.

by Shirina Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:13 pm

By the way, sorry if you are ill Shirina. Hope all goes well

Thanks, trevor. I have a neurological condition that keeps the pain sensors quite busy, if you know what I mean. Some days I'm fine, other days I'm pushed to my limits. And of course you are more than welcome to eavesdrop. Rock and I have quite a few interesting discussions - sometimes we agree and sometimes we argue, but it's always interesting. Cool

by Charlatan Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:16 pm

The way to get out of this war is not to stop recruitment, but to stop the machine itself dead in it's tracks.

One way out might be offering sancctuary to women that are abused for information leading to the capture of further terrorists. They could be offered sanctuary into the west?

by ROB Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:58 pm

Charlatan,

At what point in your life have terrorists not terrorized, tortured, raped, and murdered innocent humans? It hasn't happened in my life.

I've a house in termite country, fire ant country, roach country, great big bugs that look large enough to eat you country, and so forth. This is no exaggeration. Like most homeowners around here, I've a contract with an exterminator that regularly comes by and kills pests. I pay for this service semi-annually, and I intend to keep paying and keep 'em spraying indefinitely.

That's the mindset decent folks need insofar as terrorist beasts are concerned. There are several fine exterminating companies out there, including British SAS, Aussie SAS (I've been told that they are the cream of the crop), SEAL Team Six (popular name), Delta Force (if they exist), MI%, MI%, RCMP, FBI, CIA, and so forth. If decent people continue to pay for their services, and the 21st Century cooperation between these various fine companies continues to improve, we decent folks can keep bestial terrorism at a minimum.

We’ve got to pay to spray, and we've got to keep it up.

by **astradt1** Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:18 pm

Quite a bit. You might start by researching the WWII Nazi connection to Islamafascism.

So this thread should be called 'Can the war against Islamic Terrorism be won?'

Not all Terrorists are Islamic............

by ROB Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:30 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Not all Terrorists are Islamic............

True.

Nazi terrorist of WWII, Japanese terrorists of pre-WWII and WWII, and Soviet terrorists of WWII were not Islamafascists.

Moreover, “Islamic” and “Islamafascism” are not equivalent terms. The former refers to things associated with Islam; the latter refers to things associated with beasts masquerading as human beings that adulterate the Qur’an to effect evil bestiality on decent folks throughout the world.

by astra Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:37 pm

Stern Gang

Red Brigade

IRA

the list is almost endless!

by ROB Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:41 pm

astra wrote:
Stern Gang

Red Brigade

IRA

All beasts masquerading as human beings that perpetrate evil bestiality on decent folks throughout the world.

by Sponsored content