• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Wants its Hero Spy who Betrayed America to be Allowed to Move to Israel

oneworld2 said:
On the contrary. It is because I know what happened there and what the hotel was used as that I made the case that it was a war crime and not terrorism. Pretty obvious but apparently not to you.

I gave the distinctions to you about why and how things should be defined in an ongoing armed conflict wrt the actions of some Palestinian factions and have applied it to the letter here when defining this action. It's called being consistant instead of being a partisan hack.

The King David Hotel was both a military headquarters AND the civil administrative centre for the British Mandate governernment . IE it was a dual use building and as such any attack on it would certainly kill a large number of civilians, as was confirmed by the status of victims of the attack itself. The Jewish faction responsible could have attacked the annexe of the hotel housing the military police of the British Mandate forces thus ensuring predominantly military casualties but it didn't.

Out of those killed ,91, only 13 were soldiers and 3 police which leaves 75 dead civilians. If Hamas had blown up a bus in Tel Aviv that was parked next to a army check point killing 16 soldiers and 75 civilians and claimed the target was the soldiers you would refer to it as terrorism and I would class it as a war crime for the indiscriminate nature of it . IE if you state the target was the soldiers but the nature of the attack was obviously going to kill many many more civilians you cannot claim that the miltary advantage could justify the deaths of civilian casualties.

Likewise, if PIJ attacked the Knesset , the Israeli government hub, it would be an attack solely on a civil building with civilians working there and would be a terrorist attack.

In short , once again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in

An attack on a military target by forces is legitimate

An attack on a military target that is understood to present an unjustifiably risk to civilians counts as a war crime

An attack on a civilian building is a war crime and attacks for the sole intent to kill civilains in a civilian building is terrorism

The King David Hotel attack , because of the usage of that building and what was attacked by th Jewish group clearly counts as the attack with the known result that mostly civilians will be killed even if you claim to be attacking the military target. Thus it is a war crime because it was prosecuted within the context of an armed conflict.

So , yes , you are defending a war crime committed against the British by a Jewish group that ,at that time , also engaged in genuine terrorist attacks. Now that this has been established the glaring double standards you show ALL of the time here are laid bare once again.

BTW I don't " cheer " the deaths of people in a war. You will find that coming more from the hopelessly biased partisan hacks here such as yourself

If Hamas were to attack the Knesset

Thus had the attack
Click to expand...

Hmmm

Legitimate military target. But a "war crime" to attack it.

You may wish to reread the bits about "war crime".

And.... For all that typing you left off one thing that stands out against most other claimed terrorist actions of the times.

If you are so well read. I can only conclude it was an intentional omision.
 
Fledermaus said:
Hmmm

Legitimate military target. But a "war crime" to attack it.

You may wish to reread the bits about "war crime".

And.... For all that typing you left off one thing that stands out against most other claimed terrorist actions of the times.

If you are so well read. I can only conclude it was an intentional omision.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm indeed. I don't see you challenging anything I said to the point it refutes it so.......... so much for me not understanding the context of the King David Hotel attack, eh ?

At least I am consistant on my definitions and apply them across the board whereas yours are based on a personal animus towards all things Arab and a compulsion to defend Jewish attacks against others even up to and including war crimes. As you have again here and have done so elsewhere in this forum.
 
oneworld2 said:
Hmmmmm indeed. I don't see you challenging anything I said to the point it refutes it so.......... so much for me not understanding the context of the King David Hotel attack, eh ?

At least I am consistant on my definitions and apply them across the board whereas yours are based on a personal animus towards all things Arab and a compulsion to defend Jewish attacks against others even up to and including war crimes. As you have again here and have done so elsewhere in this forum.
Click to expand...

You consider an attack on a legitimate military target to be a "war crime". Reread the definition of "war crime".

Still waiting for the thing that sets the King David Attack apart from so many other attacks.

The elephant in the room that both you and TAAC refuse to address.
 
oneworld2 said:
Hmmmmm indeed. I don't see you challenging anything I said to the point it refutes it so.......... so much for me not understanding the context of the King David Hotel attack, eh ?

At least I am consistant on my definitions and apply them across the board whereas yours are based on a personal animus towards all things Arab and a compulsion to defend Jewish attacks against others even up to and including war crimes. As you have again here and have done so elsewhere in this forum.
Click to expand...

1. It was a legitimate target.

2. Warnings were issues so as to prevent civilian losses.

3. The warnings were ignored by the British which led to casualties that need not have happened.
 
Fledermaus said:
You consider an attack on a legitimate military target to be a "war crime". Reread the definition of "war crime".
Click to expand...

It wasn't just a military target , it was a civil building too and as such the attackers must have known there would be mass civilian casualties and that is not a legitimate act, whoever does it. Had they have blown up the annexe part and 50 soldiers were killed with 2 civilians you would be right but in this instance wrt the hotl itself you are wrong.

Nope , I have read these definitions many times so maybe you need to read them ONCE.

I have told you why on so many occasions and supported it with the definitions I can't believe you are being this deliberately obtuse. If you claim you fired a bazooka at a bee hive ( recall this ? ) to target the Queen bee for assassination ( the military target ) knowing full well that the result would be the deaths of thousands of other innocent bees that is classed as an indiscriminate attck and thus , in the context of an ongoing conflict , a war crime.

During the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from Gaza a small number of Israeli soldiers have been killed as a result. Thus, if the Palestinian factions claimed they were aiming their ordnance at the Israeli military and were trying to avoid killing civilians they would still be guilty of war crimes because of the indiscriminate nature of the attacks themselves. You and I would be in agreement because it is right that those indiscriminate acts are crimes. The difference is when Jews do it , like in the KDH attack you defend it.



Still waiting for the thing that sets the King David Attack apart from so many other attacks.

The elephant in the room that both you and TAAC refuse to address.
Click to expand...

Maybe you have watched too many reality TV shows and have to have that long pause before something is said just for the drama value :roll:
 
Fledermaus said:
1. It was a legitimate target.

2. Warnings were issues so as to prevent civilian losses.

3. The warnings were ignored by the British which led to casualties that need not have happened.
Click to expand...

Is this your " elephant in the room " suspense thriller point ?

Read the link you are referring to and read the "Sir John Shaw controversy" and you will see how rubbish and unsupported that claim is. Everyone that has tried to make that claim was threatened with legal action and then backed down and here you are pushing it as a fact.
 
oneworld2 said:
Is this your " elephant in the room " suspense thriller point ?

Read the link you are referring to and read the "Sir John Shaw controversy" and you will see how rubbish and unsupported that claim is. Everyone that has tried to make that claim was threatened with legal action and then backed down and here you are pushing it as a fact.
Click to expand...

The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which, possibly because hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time, the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[15] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day.[14] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but no evacuation was ordered.[15] Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings, and the reasons why, given that warnings were made, the hotel was not evacuated



Numerous warnings

No evacuation.
 
oneworld2 said:
It wasn't just a military target , it was a civil building too and as such the attackers must have known there would be mass civilian casualties and that is not a legitimate act, whoever does it. Had they have blown up the annexe part and 50 soldiers were killed with 2 civilians you would be right but in this instance wrt the hotl itself you are wrong.

Nope , I have read these definitions many times so maybe you need to read them ONCE.

I have told you why on so many occasions and supported it with the definitions I can't believe you are being this deliberately obtuse. If you claim you fired a bazooka at a bee hive ( recall this ? ) to target the Queen bee for assassination ( the military target ) knowing full well that the result would be the deaths of thousands of other innocent bees that is classed as an indiscriminate attck and thus , in the context of an ongoing conflict , a war crime.

During the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from Gaza a small number of Israeli soldiers have been killed as a result. Thus, if the Palestinian factions claimed they were aiming their ordnance at the Israeli military and were trying to avoid killing civilians they would still be guilty of war crimes because of the indiscriminate nature of the attacks themselves. You and I would be in agreement because it is right that those indiscriminate acts are crimes. The difference is when Jews do it , like in the KDH attack you defend it.

Maybe you have watched too many reality TV shows and have to have that long pause before something is said just for the drama value :roll:
Click to expand...

Military target: Central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan. The military telephone exchange. Also military police.

When a military target will involve civilian casualties it is incumbent on the attacker to try to reduce the civilian casualties..... Like phoning in multiple warning of a bomb. Multiple.
 
Fledermaus said:
The Irgun sent warnings by telephone, including one to the hotel's own switchboard, which, possibly because hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time, the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[15] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day.[14] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but no evacuation was ordered.[15] Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings, and the reasons why, given that warnings were made, the hotel was not evacuated



Numerous warnings

No evacuation.
Click to expand...

Highlighting the stuff you want but not the relevant parts that undermine it should fool nobody but the foolish. You also miss the glaring lie you told in your previous commentary also contained in the text above.

Recall you claimed the Jewish terror group operatives told " the British " of the bomb they had planted and they had failed to evacuate ? It's hogwash, at least if we are talking about the British authorities and is in the text you quoted above but was not ?..........highlighted. What a shocker eh ? :roll:

So lets revisit the c/p you ripped from the wiki article and highlight the stuff you didn't want to focus on and it's so revealing as well as serving the added bonus underscoring my points here

The Irgun sent warnings by telephoneincluding one to the hotel's own switchboard, which, possibly because hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time, the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[15] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day.[14] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion he called an unknown British officer :roll:, but no evacuation was ordered.[15] Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings, and the reasons why, given that warnings were made, the hotel was not evacuated


In short

The warnings , and why they were not sent to the British authorities , appeared in the midst of a whole load of hoax calls ,( who is making them ? ) one that was made on the same day ( hence the " bomb search" ) and this from the very people who were responsible for planning and carrying out the attack ? lol

Those who were caught out denying claims made about them for the story of John Shaw's alleged knowledge ?

The aim of the British , according to the Jewish terror group, was to " vilify " them by allowing masses of their own people and their headquarters to be blown up ? Really ? There were plenty of dead Brits there already to make the case for the vilification of the likes of the Irgun and the claim looks weak at best.

But the real killer for me is regarding the John Shaw part

Clarke's assessment was that the story about Shaw was, in fact, "a baseless rumour promoted by the Haganah in order to mollify the Irgun and fix responsibility for the carnage on Shaw."[14] Shmuel Katz, who had been a member of the Irgun's high command, later also wrote that "the story can be dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
oneworld2 said:
Highlighting the stuff you want but not the relevant parts that undermine it should fool nobody but the foolish. You also miss the glaring lie you told in your previous commentary also contained in the text above.

Recall you claimed the Jewish terror group operatives told " the British " of the bomb they had planted and they had failed to evacuate ? It's hogwash, at least if we are talking about the British authorities and is in the text you quoted above but was not ?..........highlighted. What a shocker eh ? :roll:

So lets revisit the c/p you ripped from the wiki article and highlight the stuff you didn't want to focus on and it's so revealing as well as serving the added bonus underscoring my points here

The Irgun sent warnings by telephoneincluding one to the hotel's own switchboard, which, possibly because hoax bomb warnings were rife at the time, the staff decided to ignore, but none directly to the British authorities.[15] From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day.[14] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm, and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion he called an unknown British officer :roll:, but no evacuation was ordered.[15] Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings, and the reasons why, given that warnings were made, the hotel was not evacuated


In short

The warnings , and why they were not sent to the British authorities , appeared in the midst of a whole load of hoax calls ,( who is making them ? ) one that was made on the same day ( hence the " bomb search" ) and this from the very people who were responsible for planning and carrying out the attack ? lol

Those who were caught out denying claims made about them for the story of John Shaw's alleged knowledge ?

The aim of the British , according to the Jewish terror group, was to " vilify " them by allowing masses of their own people and their headquarters to be blown up ? Really ? There were plenty of dead Brits there already to make the case for the vilification of the likes of the Irgun and the claim looks weak at best.

But the real killer for me is regarding the John Shaw part
Click to expand...

In short a legitimate military target was targeted.

Warnings were given but ignored leading to civilian deaths.
 
Fledermaus said:
1. It was a legitimate target.

2. Warnings were issues so as to prevent civilian losses.

3. The warnings were ignored by the British which led to casualties that need not have happened.
Click to expand...

God, you are truly some piece of work. Now its the fault of the British for not evacuating the hotel, and keeping people safe from the holy jihad of the jews. I cannot believe that you advocate for bombing Iran, Syria and others based upon terrorism, while also blaming jewish jihad's carnage on Britain. How low can you go?
 
truthatallcost said:
God, you are truly some piece of work. Now its the fault of the British for not evacuating the hotel, and keeping people safe from the holy jihad of the jews. I cannot believe that you advocate for bombing Iran, Syria and others based upon terrorism, while also blaming jewish jihad's carnage on Britain. How low can you go?
Click to expand...

Which of my points is incorrect?
 
truthatallcost said:
God, you are truly some piece of work. Now its the fault of the British for not evacuating the hotel, and keeping people safe from the holy jihad of the jews. I cannot believe that you advocate for bombing Iran, Syria and others based upon terrorism, while also blaming jewish jihad's carnage on Britain. How low can you go?
Click to expand...

.....coming from the guy who literally made a thread crying about a concentration camp guard being forced to face up to the consequences of his actions, the sheer hypocrisy in your post is truly a sight to behold.
 
Fledermaus said:
In short a legitimate military target was targeted.

Warnings were given but ignored leading to civilian deaths.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Talk about being willfully stuck in a confirmation bubble.

You should just accept, in fact we should all just accept , that you have decided to defend a war crime committed by a Jewish terrorist group.

It's just that simple. Which , considering the numerous threads you have composed about a certain Arab terrorist group that has also engages in war crimes , marks you out as someone quite prepared to indulge in a professional level of hypocrisy. It couldn't be laid bare any more clearly than in this thread imo.

Maybe people should consider from now on commenting on your own threads about the crimes committed by Arab terrorist groups, nearly all the threads you start here , with " DA ARABS!!" because the bias is that overwhelmingly obvious.
 
oneworld2 said:
:lamo

Talk about being willfully stuck in a confirmation bubble.

You should just accept, in fact we should all just accept , that you have decided to defend a war crime committed by a Jewish terrorist group.

It's just that simple. Which , considering the numerous threads you have composed about a certain Arab terrorist group that has also engages in war crimes , marks you out as someone quite prepared to indulge in a professional level of hypocrisy. It couldn't be laid bare any more clearly than in this thread imo.

Maybe people should consider from now on commenting on your own threads about the crimes committed by Arab terrorist groups, nearly all the threads you start here , with " DA ARABS!!" because the bias is that overwhelmingly obvious.
Click to expand...

Unlike the regular activities of Hamas et al the attack on the Hotel was an attack on a military target of an occupation force.

And warnings were given to prevent civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas et al who's goal is civilian casualties.

Why do you hate it when Oneworld2 rules are applied to Jewish terrorist groups?
 
oneworld2 said:
:lamo

Talk about being willfully stuck in a confirmation bubble.

You should just accept, in fact we should all just accept , that you have decided to defend a war crime committed by a Jewish terrorist group.

It's just that simple. Which , considering the numerous threads you have composed about a certain Arab terrorist group that has also engages in war crimes , marks you out as someone quite prepared to indulge in a professional level of hypocrisy. It couldn't be laid bare any more clearly than in this thread imo.

Maybe people should consider from now on commenting on your own threads about the crimes committed by Arab terrorist groups, nearly all the threads you start here , with " DA ARABS!!" because the bias is that overwhelmingly obvious.
Click to expand...

he will never accept basic facts about Israel
 
Fledermaus said:
Unlike the regular activities of Hamas et al the attack on the Hotel was an attack on a military target of an occupation force.
Click to expand...

The hotel was not just a military target it was also the civil administration of the British Mandate govt in Palestine, a civilian entity staffed by ? civilians. :roll:

Even when Hamas fighters attack the IDF you still claim ( because DA ARABS ) they are terrorists trying to kill civilians that have just happened to run into soldiers :roll:

It was an indiscriminate attack against both a military/civilian building as was confirmed by the vast majority of deaths being those of civilians.

And warnings were given to prevent civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas et al who's goal is civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

Do you think that when warnings are given they only evacuate civilians ? Wow. To also ignore all of the false alarm/hoax calls, one earlier in the day , the lying about John Shaws " knowledge " about the attack and the Irgun commander that later stated it was basically a fabrication. That no warning was given to the British authorities themselves, you know , the people that can authorize an evacuation
Why do you hate it when Oneworld2 rules are applied to Jewish terrorist groups?
Click to expand...

I don't, I laugh at when Fledermaus anti Arab bias allows him to defend war crimes if they are committed by Jewish terrorist groups also blaming the victims to boot , wow!! It doesn't get more stark than that.
 
TypicalRussian said:
he will never accept basic facts about Israel
Click to expand...

Worse still he applies vastly different standards and defends many crimes and atrocities if they are committed by Jews/Israelis/Americans. Partisan hacks like that cannot be reached so the only thing left to do is rubbish their completely biased commentary in case any others actually fall for it.
 
oneworld2 said:
The hotel was not just a military target it was also the civil administration of the British Mandate govt in Palestine, a civilian entity staffed by ? civilians. :roll:
Click to expand...

The Hotel was indeed a military target. As in military. Because there were military assets and personnel. Military Headquarters are military targets. Right? Military communication hubs are military targets. Right? Military personnel are military targets. Right?

oneworld2 said:
Even when Hamas fighters attack the IDF you still claim ( because DA ARABS ) they are terrorists trying to kill civilians that have just happened to run into soldiers :roll:
Click to expand...

When is the last time Hamas has attacked the IDF as opposed to attacking innocent civilians?

oneworld2 said:
It was an indiscriminate attack against both a military/civilian building as was confirmed by the vast majority of deaths being those of civilians.
Click to expand...

Laughably incorrect.

Warnings were given to prevent civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas et al who's goal is civilian casualties.

oneworld2 said:
Do you think that when warnings are given they only evacuate civilians ? Wow. To also ignore all of the false alarm/hoax calls, one earlier in the day , the lying about John Shaws " knowledge " about the attack and the Irgun commander that later stated it was basically a fabrication. That no warning was given to the British authorities themselves, you know , the people that can authorize an evacuation
Click to expand...

Warnings were given. Continue to remain intentionally ignorant of that fact.

That the warnings were not heeded is not the fault of the people giving the warnings.

oneworld2 said:
I don't, I laugh at when Fledermaus anti Arab bias allows him to defend war crimes if they are committed by Jewish terrorist groups also blaming the victims to boot , wow!! It doesn't get more stark than that.
Click to expand...

Blaming the victims for the bombing? No. Blaming the people who did not heed the repeated warnings thereby ensuring civilian losses? Yes.

You call this a "war crime".

Under which law?
 
Fledermaus said:
The Hotel was indeed a military target. As in military. Because there were military assets and personnel. Military Headquarters are military targets. Right? Military communication hubs are military targets. Right? Military personnel are military targets. Right?
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of the laws of war , for an ex military person , is staggering and on display in the above again.

Shock. You can attack a military target and STILL commit a war crime. Shocking isn't it ?

I've given you the example, numerous times ( all ignored ) of firing a bazooka shell at a beehive claiming the queen bee ( the military )was the intended target. The crime being that the consequence of that action is fully understood , that you will also kill a large number of innocent bees. The inevitable result of such an action that the prosecutor/attacker cannot claim wasn't expected or understood. That is NOT permitted in the laws of war for OBVIOUS reasons that are not obvious to you because partisan hacks stick to their story regardless of the facts and that's what distinguishes them as hacks.

You also ignore that there was an annexe to the hotel that housed ? The British MILITARY police... and had that been the target and the casualty figures were 75 dead military personnel and 16 civilians you would have a good case defending that. They didn't do that and chose to attack the hotel that was both military HQ AND CIVILIAN govt administrative headquarters for the British Mandate govt. Thus it was OBVIOUS that many innocent civilians would die. as was the case despite your ridiculous comments about " warnings ".

So you can bleat and cry foul all you want to but your OPINION is based on ignorance of the law and a wish to defend war crimes IF committed by Jewish terror groups and condemn them as crimes only when they are committed by DA ARABS.
 
Fledermaus said:
When is the last time Hamas has attacked the IDF as opposed to attacking innocent civilians?
Click to expand...

Strawman , remember what this is a reply to ? I'll remind you.....

oneworld2 said:
Even when Hamas fighters attack the IDF you still claim ( because DA ARABS ) they are terrorists trying to kill civilians that have just happened to run into soldiers
Click to expand...

So it doesn't matter where or when the Hamas combatants have attacked legitimate military targets, you still class them as terrorists just so happening to run into soldiers, that's what you do , correct ?

You recently ignored data in an article stating that IDF soldiers were the targets of Hamas and co flying incendiary devices being flown over the fence ( note not wall , that's the other border )

Thus you are definitely applying different standards to Arab and Jewish terror groups and claiming only Arab actions are illegal/illegitimate. Fact !
 
oneworld2 said:
Your ignorance of the laws of war , for an ex military person , is staggering and on display in the above again.

Shock. You can attack a military target and STILL commit a war crime. Shocking isn't it ?

I've given you the example, numerous times ( all ignored ) of firing a bazooka shell at a beehive claiming the queen bee ( the military )was the intended target. The crime being that the consequence of that action is fully understood , that you will also kill a large number of innocent bees. The inevitable result of such an action that the prosecutor/attacker cannot claim wasn't expected or understood. That is NOT permitted in the laws of war for OBVIOUS reasons that are not obvious to you because partisan hacks stick to their story regardless of the facts and that's what distinguishes them as hacks.

You also ignore that there was an annexe to the hotel that housed ? The British MILITARY police... and had that been the target and the casualty figures were 75 dead military personnel and 16 civilians you would have a good case defending that. They didn't do that and chose to attack the hotel that was both military HQ AND CIVILIAN govt administrative headquarters for the British Mandate govt. Thus it was OBVIOUS that many innocent civilians would die. as was the case despite your ridiculous comments about " warnings ".

So you can bleat and cry foul all you want to but your OPINION is based on ignorance of the law and a wish to defend war crimes IF committed by Jewish terror groups and condemn them as crimes only when they are committed by DA ARABS.
Click to expand...

If one takes steps top prevent civilian casualties it is not a war crime.

You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
 
oneworld2 said:
Strawman , remember what this is a reply to ? I'll remind you.....

So it doesn't matter where or when the Hamas combatants have attacked legitimate military targets, you still class them as terrorists just so happening to run into soldiers, that's what you do , correct ?

You recently ignored data in an article stating that IDF soldiers were the targets of Hamas and co flying incendiary devices being flown over the fence ( note not wall , that's the other border )

Thus you are definitely applying different standards to Arab and Jewish terror groups and claiming only Arab actions are illegal/illegitimate. Fact !
Click to expand...

Blah, blah blah blah

You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom