Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 152

Thread: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

  1. #121
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It was a group of nine males carrying AK47s AND RPGS just a few blocks from an active war zone and right next to where US troops reported taking fire.

    Why is it that all of you keep ignoring these other facts that eviscerate your position?
    An RPG wouldn't be a bad thing to have either with a war going on around them and civilians getting killed left and right. But yes, it is suspicious. I haven't read enough into the event to know what happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm asking for you to show me the actual language that says this was illegal, not a layman's summary of some general principles. The reason why I'm asking for that is because different provisions of the GC apply to different classes of people in different scenarios. I think you'll be surprised to find that there was absolutely nothing prohibiting what the US did here.
    It is laid out in there. If you want more links (which are in the origional link I gave you) here you go...

    (I'm not going to quote everything out... there's too much information)

    First Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    * Article 12 mandates that wounded and sick soldiers who are out of the battle should be humanely treated, and in particular should not be killed, injured, tortured, or subjected to biological experimentation. This article is the keystone of the treaty, and defines the principles from which most of the rest the treaty is derived,[9] including the obligation to respect medical units and establishments (Chapter III), the personnel entrusted with the care of the wounded (Chapter IV), buildings and material (Chapter V), medical transports (Chapter VI), and the protective sign (Chapter VII).
    * Article 15 mandates that wounded and sick soldiers should be collected, cared for, and protected, though they may also become prisoners of war.
    * Article 16 mandates that parties to the conflict should record the identity of the dead and wounded, and transmit this information to the opposing party.
    * Article 9 allows the International Red Cross "or any other impartial humanitarian organization" to provide protection and relief of wounded and sick soldiers, as well as medical and religious personnel.

    Second Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    # Articles 12 and 18 requires all parties to protect and care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked.
    # Article 21 allows appeals to be made to neutral vessels to help collect and care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked. The neutral vessels cannot be captured.
    # Articles 36 and 37 protect religious and medical personnel serving on a combat ship.
    # Article 22 states that hospital ships cannot be used for any military purpose, and owing to their humanitarian mission, they cannot be attacked or captured.
    # Article 14 clarifies that although a warship cannot capture a hospital ship's medical staff, it can hold the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked as prisoners of war
    Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Article 12 states that prisoners of war are the responsibility of the state not the persons who capture them and that they may not be transferred to a state that is not party to the Convention.

    Articles 13 to 16 state that prisoners of war must be treated humanely without any adverse discrimination and that their medical needs must be met.
    Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.
    Amendments:
    Protocol I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Protocol II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Protocol III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    There is obviously more information to look at, and if you want the exact text of the Geneva Convention there are links within the Wikipedia pages as well as which countries are part of the Geneva Convention. (The U.S. and Iraq are part of it)

    What stood out to me is that even if these people in the Apache situation were civilians, the Apache was not intentionally shooting on them because they were civilians. So I do not think their actions would be considered illegal under the Geneva Convention. However what I'd like to know is when the Apache continued shooting (and killing) the wounded men, as well as the man trying to rescue one of the wounded reporters, would the Apache's actions be seen as illegal under the Second Geneva Convention?


    Also, as Iraq is apart of the Geneva Convention, any torturing of prisoners done by their forces is illegal. So I'd think the U.S. military would be given the right to stop any torture done by Iraqis.
    "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." —John Adams

  2. #122
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,324
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Why is it that some people want to believe so badly that in this case, the US military was in the wrong, and will ignore anything they have to which doesn't fit the narrative?

    What do you get out of it? Seriously?
    Dammit! I agreed with apdst earlier in this thread, and now you. My liberal cred is ruined!
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #123
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    An RPG wouldn't be a bad thing to have either with a war going on around them and civilians getting killed left and right.
    If you walk around in an active war zone with AK47s and RPGs, you are too stupid to live.

    It is laid out in there. If you want more links (which are in the origional link I gave you) here you go...

    (I'm not going to quote everything out... there's too much information)
    You're misinterpreting those provisions. Those deal with lawful combatants who are either captured or otherwise removed from combat. They say nothing about unlawful combatants who are on a live battlefield and are seeking to escape from the field. There is no provision in the GCs that prohibits what the US did here.

    What stood out to me is that even if these people in the Apache situation were civilians, the Apache was not intentionally shooting on them because they were civilians. So I do not think their actions would be considered illegal under the Geneva Convention.
    Precisely. You've hit on the point that several others continue to miss.

    However what I'd like to know is when the Apache continued shooting (and killing) the wounded men, as well as the man trying to rescue one of the wounded reporters, would the Apache's actions be seen as illegal under the Second Geneva Convention?
    No, as nothing in any of the GC's prohibits firing on combatants on a live battlefield, regardless of whether they're trying to flee.


    Also, as Iraq is apart of the Geneva Convention, any torturing of prisoners done by their forces is illegal. So I'd think the U.S. military would be given the right to stop any torture done by Iraqis.
    With limited and irrelevant exceptions, the Geneva Conventions only apply to interstate conflicts. They don't apply to situations where Iraqi police mistreat prisoners, just like they don't apply where the LAPD beats a guy in custody.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #124
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Bull****. You know that there's nothing that says that and now you're trying to dodge. You made a claim, now back it up.
    Here:

    Iraq: Wikileaks Documents Describe Torture of Detainees | Human Rights Watch

    Tell me exactly what you think we should have done and why.
    I already gave several possible actions we could have taken. Since we had and still have considerable influence due to our presence that is one way we could apply pressure to get such actions dealt with.

    Yea, who would ever define whistleblower like that?



    The US whistleblower laws explicitly do not include people who illegally leak information to the public. But yea, your definition of whistleblower definitely trumps theirs.
    It doesn't even appear to include people who go to the media so it is clear any such laws are merely about restricting the protections for whistleblowers. I am going with the common sense definition, not some political definition meant to work in favor of abusive authorities.

    I'll take out current "totalitarian system" over your fantasyland.
    I wasn't calling the U.S. totalitarian and it is not a fantasy. There are countries that entrench such strong protections for whistleblowers in their laws.

    lol, this is such a load of ****.

    The Jawa Report: Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq (UPDATED & Bumped Yet Again)

    There's a guy standing IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GROUP, CARRYING AN RPG. When the troops arrived on the scene, they discovered multiple RPGs and RPG rounds. You might not want to admit that, but that's the reality.
    The Jawa report is not reliable and neither are the results of the military investigation. There is already sufficient evidence that the military lied about the incident and covered up damaging information.

    Give me a link. I'm tired of you throwing out claims without any evidence.



    Link?



    Link?
    It is the Geneva Conventions and it is right at the beginning so I fail to see why I should provide this, but no matter:

    Chapter II. Wounded and Sick

    Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

    They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
    Source: International Committee of the Red Cross

    Of course, this is all beside the point as the individuals we are talking about were both unarmed and if you watch the video the people in the helicopter are fully aware of this. Unarmed people are protected period.
    Last edited by Demon of Light; 10-24-10 at 03:45 PM.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #125
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    lol, nice try. I asked you for "a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured." I'm still waiting.

    I already gave several possible actions we could have taken. Since we had and still have considerable influence due to our presence that is one way we could apply pressure to get such actions dealt with.
    How? Be explicit. Simply saying "well we should pressure them to fix it!" isn't an answer, unless you think we can simply tell them what to do or we should sacrifice other priorities in favor of this.

    It doesn't even appear to include people who go to the media so it is clear any such laws are merely about restricting the protections for whistleblowers. I am going with the common sense definition, not some political definition meant to work in favor of abusive authorities.
    So in a discussion over whether or not someone counts as a whistleblower here in the US, you'd prefer to use your own made-up definition rather than the actual definition codified in US law. Yea, sounds reasonable.

    I wasn't calling the U.S. totalitarian and it is not a fantasy.
    You said that unless we change our rules, we might as well resign ourselves to a totalitarian system. And yes, it is a fantasy.

    There are countries that entrench such strong protections for whistleblowers in their laws.
    Link me to a country that offers whistleblower protection for someone who steals classified military documents and leaks them.

    The Jawa report is not reliable and neither are the results of the military investigation. There is already sufficient evidence that the military lied about the incident and covered up damaging information.
    el oh el

    THERE ARE PICTURES. TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO. OF THE GUYS WITH RPGS. STANDING NEXT TO THE REPORTERS.

    It's like you're doing everything possible to blind yourself to reality.



    It is the Geneva Conventions and it is right at the beginning so I fail to see why I should provide this, but no matter:
    Try reading a little closer.

    "They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be,"

    This provision applies to the wounded and sick that are captured or otherwise removed from the battlefield. It does not apply to people who are on a live battlefield.

    You also failed to read the next article.

    Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

    (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
    (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
    (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) that of carrying arms openly;
    (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    If the individuals in question didn't satisfy all these criteria, then they wouldn't be covered by the convention even had the US actually captured and removed them from the battlefield.


    Of course, this is all beside the point as the individuals we are talking about were both unarmed and if you watch the video the people in the helicopter are fully aware of this.
    This is just wrong.

    Unarmed people are protected period.
    Also wrong.

    By the way, in your last post you made a half dozen claims that I asked you for evidence for. You didn't offer any. Are you acknowledging that you were wrong, or are you just saving those for a future post?
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 10-24-10 at 04:01 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #126
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    lol, nice try. I asked you for "a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured." I'm still waiting.
    I never said they were turn over "so that they could be tortured" at any point. I said we turned them over knowing they would likely be tortured. Here is what you first asked:

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Link to these people in question being caught by us and turned over with the knowledge that they would be tortured?
    I just assumed you still wanted the answer to that question.

    How? Be explicit. Simply saying "well we should pressure them to fix it!" isn't an answer, unless you think we can simply tell them what to do or we should sacrifice other priorities in favor of this.
    Threatening withdrawal of certain services we provide them or other threats pertaining to exposure and/or punishment of their illegal acts. Reducing diplomatic visits is another common tactic of applying pressure.

    So in a discussion over whether or not someone counts as a whistleblower here in the US, you'd prefer to use your own made-up definition rather than the actual definition codified in US law. Yea, sounds reasonable.
    No, I am talking about the definition that is used by pretty much everyone who uses it and not a definition provided by government simply to cover its own ass.

    You said that unless we change our rules, we might as well resign ourselves to a totalitarian system.
    Did not say we were in one. I was making a point that treating all whistleblowers like traitors will lead to such a situation.

    Link me to a country that offers whistleblower protection for someone who steals classified military documents and leaks them.
    When said documents expose war crimes? Many, I think that goes without saying. Exposing criminal activity on the part of people in government is frequently protected.

    THERE ARE PICTURES. TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO. OF THE GUYS WITH RPGS. STANDING NEXT TO THE REPORTERS.
    One of them shows two people standing on a street corner that the journalists walk past and shows another picture claiming someone is armed, though it is only in the sense that he has arms. Also, the report makes another false claim saying someone with an RPG ducks behind a building. If you pay close attention to the video you see that the individual in question has a camera, not an RPG, though it is an understandable mistake since they have some long-ass lenses.

    Try reading a little closer.

    "They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be,"

    This provision applies to the wounded and sick that are captured or otherwise removed from the battlefield. It does not apply to people who are on a live battlefield.

    You also failed to read the next article.



    If the individuals in question didn't satisfy all these criteria, then they wouldn't be covered by the convention even had the US actually captured and removed them from the battlefield.




    Also wrong.
    I suppose we should have both kept reading:

    The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
    Later Protocols that the U.S. has signed but not ratified are more specific in providing protections to good Samaritans.

    By the way, in your last post you made a half dozen claims that I asked you for evidence for. You didn't offer any. Are you acknowledging that you were wrong, or are you just saving those for a future post?
    I have provided links that address all of your questions. The fact I didn't individually address every question is quite meaningless.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  7. #127
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I never said they were turn over "so that they could be tortured" at any point. I said we turned them over knowing they would likely be tortured. Here is what you first asked:

    I just assumed you still wanted the answer to that question.
    I also asked you "for a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured," to which you replied "Obviously, you aren't looking hard enough or maybe you just don't want to look hard enough."

    Regardless, you haven't provided any evidence for either of those claims.

    When the US ratified the UNCAT, here is what they said:

    The United States understands the phrase, 'where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,' as used in Article 3 of the Convention, to mean 'if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.
    In order to show a violation of that treaty (or of any law), you have to show that the US was aware that it was more likely than not that any individual prisoner that they transferred to Iraqi custody would be tortured. I'm still waiting for any evidence to support that.

    Threatening withdrawal of certain services we provide them or other threats pertaining to exposure and/or punishment of their illegal acts. Reducing diplomatic visits is another common tactic of applying pressure.
    All of which are tactics that we presumably use to try to get the Iraqi government to do other things as well. Part of diplomacy is understanding that you have a limited amount of juice and deciding where that juice is best allocated. The US government, under both Bush and Obama, looked at the situation and decided that the ROI from pushing for the things you suggest was not worth it when compared to the other things they could push for. You disagree. Given the vast disparity of information and expertise, I'll trust their judgment over yours.

    No, I am talking about the definition that is used by pretty much everyone who uses it and not a definition provided by government simply to cover its own ass.
    lol

    Yea, when discussing how to define "whistleblower," the definition that "pretty much everyone" (read: you) uses is far more relevant than the definition that the US and most every other country uses.

    Did not say we were in one. I was making a point that treating all whistleblowers like traitors will lead to such a situation.
    Who said we treat whistleblowers like traitors? Whistleblowers are fine. This guy wasn't a whistleblower.


    When said documents expose war crimes? Many, I think that goes without saying. Exposing criminal activity on the part of people in government is frequently protected.
    So link me to one. You have a bad habit of making claims that you don't back up.

    One of them shows two people standing on a street corner that the journalists walk past and shows another picture claiming someone is armed, though it is only in the sense that he has arms. Also, the report makes another false claim saying someone with an RPG ducks behind a building. If you pay close attention to the video you see that the individual in question has a camera, not an RPG, though it is an understandable mistake since they have some long-ass lenses.
    There's really no point in me wasting my time on this issue any more, as you very clearly are only seeing what you want to see.

    I suppose we should have both kept reading:

    Later Protocols that the U.S. has signed but not ratified are more specific in providing protections to good Samaritans.
    ....That's in the exact same section that we were just talking about. The section that applies to situations that are no longer live battlefields.

    Moreover, it still only applies "to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories" that I listed above.

    Nothing in the Geneva Conventions covers this situation.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #128
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,145

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    lol, nice try. I asked you for "a link to the story talking about how we arrested the people we're talking about and turned them over to the Iraqis so that they could be tortured." I'm still waiting.



    How? Be explicit. Simply saying "well we should pressure them to fix it!" isn't an answer, unless you think we can simply tell them what to do or we should sacrifice other priorities in favor of this.



    So in a discussion over whether or not someone counts as a whistleblower here in the US, you'd prefer to use your own made-up definition rather than the actual definition codified in US law. Yea, sounds reasonable.



    You said that unless we change our rules, we might as well resign ourselves to a totalitarian system. And yes, it is a fantasy.



    Link me to a country that offers whistleblower protection for someone who steals classified military documents and leaks them.



    el oh el

    THERE ARE PICTURES. TAKEN FROM THE VIDEO. OF THE GUYS WITH RPGS. STANDING NEXT TO THE REPORTERS.

    It's like you're doing everything possible to blind yourself to reality.





    Try reading a little closer.

    "They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be,"

    This provision applies to the wounded and sick that are captured or otherwise removed from the battlefield. It does not apply to people who are on a live battlefield.

    You also failed to read the next article.



    If the individuals in question didn't satisfy all these criteria, then they wouldn't be covered by the convention even had the US actually captured and removed them from the battlefield.




    This is just wrong.



    Also wrong.

    By the way, in your last post you made a half dozen claims that I asked you for evidence for. You didn't offer any. Are you acknowledging that you were wrong, or are you just saving those for a future post?
    wait no more
    read this and note the allies complicity in turning over prisoners to an iraqi unit known to inflict torture
    Iraq war logs: US turned over captives to Iraqi torture squads | World news | The Guardian
    Iraq war logs: US turned over captives to Iraqi torture squads
    and it now appears to be a topic of interest to the UN
    UN calls for probe into US inaction on torture | Raw Story
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #129
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Leaking these docs is nothing less than an act of treason and espionage. The entire motive for the leaks is to undermine the war effort. Therefore ending the war, by causing the Coalition forces to lose. Your post is defeatism, at it's worst.
    Did I not say they are just as bad as US/UK Armed forces killing civilians? There is no difference between who is doing the killing and I am well aware that Muslims kill Muslims much more than Non Muslims do.

    But Iraq would never have fell into civil war if the West did not invade it, to deny that our actions led to deaths even indirectly is lying.

    "The war effort" has been undermined for years, the majority of British never supported it from the beginning and I hope one of the side effects of this leak is UK soldiers pulling out and investigation into both UK and US over our actions if proven to be all true.
    I do not care if we win Iraq. We should never have been there to begin there and I see nothing to be gained but more leaked reports about death, torture, rape and cover ups by our soldiers or someone else.

    I hope he leaks some more reports and I hope UK files are included. I have learned alot of interesting things that have been hidden. Like how UK forces managed to "lose" a most wanted Al Qaeda commander due to what I can only describe as incompetence.
    Last edited by Laila; 10-24-10 at 06:08 PM.


  10. #130
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,566

    Re: Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Dammit! I agreed with apdst earlier in this thread, and now you. My liberal cred is ruined!
    Oh, you've agreed with me many times. You've just repressed the memory.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •