TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A primer on how the enemy is fighting in Iraq

A primer on how the enemy is fighting in Iraq

ala Fark.com

quote:

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 FROM IRAQ: A MARINE�S NOTES [Cliff May] The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. � Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges, in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war. Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and "Googleearth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured. Who are the bad guys�? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly "foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.), and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the EuphratesRiver that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in various "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.). These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. They have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago. Bad Guy Tactics: When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AK's and RPG's directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time (see the M2 and M240 above). Jordan's base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo's (Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast mover's, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre Gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber shit. The new strategy is just simple: attrition. The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for inflicting civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but can't reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.). The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Morale: [M]orale among our guys is very high. They not only believe that they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like "Are we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, is that there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just can't stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally ...

I guess my question would be, why is the media so anti-war?
Do they miss the Vietnam war that much that they feel the need be relevant again by smearing the current war?
All hail freedom of the press / free speech, etc. but you'd think there were at least be some balance in overall reporting...

My eyes quickly skimmed this part:

quote:

Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly "foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe).

Uhh, no. The majority of violence is sectarian-related, with some 90-95% comprised of Iraqi citizens and only a small portion from al Qaeda and foreign terrorist groups.

Here ya go:

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report. Attacks by Iraqi insurgents and sectarian militias jumped 22 percent from mid-August to mid-November, and Iraqi civilians suffered the bulk of casualties, according to the quarterly report released on Monday. The average number of attacks reported each week jumped during that period from nearly 800 to almost 1,000, the report said. (Watch how insurgent and sectarian attacks have become a staple of Iraqi civilian life Video) The two most prominent militias -- the Mehdi Army and the Badr Organization -- are armed wings of Shiite political parties whose support is crucial to the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Mehdi Army in particular "exerts significant influence in Baghdad and the southern provinces of Iraq and on the government of Iraq," and fights periodic battles with Badr supporters, according to the report. The Badr Organization is affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Pentagon report comes as Robert Gates takes over as defense secretary to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and as President Bush ponders major changes in the nearly 4-year-old war. (Watch what are Gates' chief challenges in Iraq Video) The number of attacks recorded in September and October were the highest on record, the report found, but it provided no specific figures. Nearly 70 percent of attacks targeted U.S. and allied troops, "but the overwhelming majority of casualties were suffered by Iraqis," the report concluded. (Full story)....... http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

I'd love to break down the rest, but I don't think this story is off to a good start with a factually incorrect point such as this.

Yes, I know - the media is just so gosh darn librul and anti-war, ain't it? They really did their job bashing Bush and showing their dissent going into this sucker, didn't they? They really did their job challenging Bush's assertions on WMDs, didn't they?

Gosh, to think how rosy things are, and all us libruls (and, ugh, even a nice handful of Republicans and Conservatives) are just so gosh darn negative about how Jr. is conducting this war. Gosh, all my Christmas cheer just got used up.......

I'm sure the guys on the ground know who they're dealing with, I think I'll take their word for it because you know, the media is SO reliable and factual about everything...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm sure the guys on the ground know who they're dealing with, I think I'll take their word for it because you know, the media is SO reliable and factual about everything...

The story I just gave you was from a PENTAGON REPORT.

Do yourself a favor and try to read the posts I give, please?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Uhh, no. The majority of violence is sectarian-related, with some 90-95% comprised of Iraqi citizens and only a small portion from al Qaeda and foreign terrorist groups.

And who do you think started the sectarian fighting?
When zarqawi blew up the mosque that inflamed sectarian
tension and sunni on shia violence began. Before that
they were restraint. Also his letter to Al Queda bosses
said the only way to cause enough chaos to try to force
the US to leave was to start a civil war. That just targeting
Americans and Iraqi military wasn't doing much, they
had to kill muslims who would hopefully turn on each
other...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The story I just gave you was from a PENTAGON REPORT. Do yourself a favor and try to read the posts I give, please?

This is AFTER terrorists who weren't effective against
coalition forces decided to inflame tensions and start
a civil war. Then the militias overtook the terrorists
in sectarian violence...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The story I just gave you was from a PENTAGON REPORT. Do yourself a favor and try to read the posts I give, please?

Oh yea, I forgot the Pentagon is right there on the ground, silly me.

[edit]
Wait a tic...are you actually quoting a Pentagon report from this administration?
Be still my heart..

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The story I just gave you was from a PENTAGON REPORT. Do yourself a favor and try to read the posts I give, please?

uh no, the Pentagon re, vealed that Mehdi has accelerated recently in attacks comprared to Al Queera and its sympathizers. prolly because we are focusing and getting more effective at nutralizing foriegn fighters that hid e among the pop..

the consensus, to which you prolly agree, is 50-60,000 in strength. = less than one quarter of one percent of Iraqi pop.=excruciatingly difficult to segregate assess and eliminate.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Oh yea, I forgot the Pentagon is right there on the ground, silly me.

What the hell are you smoking? You mean to tell me that Pentagon reports are somehow irrelevant? Are you really trying to tell me how this report by an ANONYMOUS email at Cliff's corner at the fucking Bush-boot-licking National Review is somehow more relevant?

quote:

[edit] Wait a tic...are you actually quoting a Pentagon report from this administration? Be still my heart..

Why is that news? Pentagon, CIA, State Dept. analysis are quoted by me quite often, especially in regards to the Iraqi situation.

And BTW, Fire, you might want to check your sources again on this little letter. This was, in fact, a DATED email from around November of 2005, maybe even earlier. This was also kinda revealing:

quote:

[M]orale among our guys is very high. They not only believe that they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them.

Considering Bush said last week that the U.S. isn't winning the war:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6121900880.html

that might have been a bit of a giveaway hint to you.

But if that didn't work, perhaps you should go to the source of your email itself. See, here's some fun excerpts from around Nov. 2005 - look familiar?:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php

http://schadenfreude.cogitox.com/archives/000457.html

And wait a fucking second, let's look at another quote:

quote:

"Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics.... Who are the bad guys�? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly "foreigners", non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe)."

So wait, we're supposed to believe that the Shiite Iranians are supplying Sunni insurgents with IEDs? What a fucking joke. How could such an expert like Cliff May on foreign politics conflate the Iran/Shia/Sunni/al Qaeda into one gigantic fucking boogeyman? Incredible.

I digress a bit. Anyway, I guess this is why your boy, Cliff, had to apologize for his bullshit?:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...ZDk1OWFkNjEzZTk

It's funny in his apology how he says an expert advising the ISG shared this year-old anonymous chain email with the group, and that group had a bit of a tiff over it.

I don't know if I should be mad or scared over the idiocy of the whole thing. I guess a bit of both. In either case, you've been had.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC This is AFTER terrorists who weren't effective against coalition forces decided to inflame tensions and start a civil war. Then the militias overtook the terrorists in sectarian violence...

Boy, I'm sure glad it's because you said so.

And by the way, when are you going to stop raping your dog? That's really sick, you know.

What, I can't back that up? Gosh, how silly of me to make such an assertion, ain't it?

And lastly, the question being posed by this anonymous letter dated over a year ago was not the origins of the insurgency, but what comprises the bulk of the blood spilled from the insurgency itself. I appreciate your straw men arguments quite lot, but since we are on the topic you are welcome to expound further on the origins with a bit of evidence to support your assertions.

Otherwise, I'd still maintain you raping your dog is pretty disgusting.

Added in edit: A very quick google came up with this:

quote:

Insurgency begins (May-June 2003) In May of 2003, after the Iraqi conventional forces had been defeated, the U.S military noticed a gradually increasing flurry of attacks on U.S troops in various regions of the so-called "Sunni Triangle," especially in Baghdad and in the regions around Fallujah and Tikrit. These consisted of small groups of suspected guerrillas firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at U.S patrols and convoys in attacks that were often poorly planned and demonstrated poor marksmanship and training. In many cases the insurgents were killed in the return fire. The attacks were blamed by the U.S military on remnants of the Ba'ath Party and the Fedayeen Saddam militia. http://pedia.nodeworks.com/H/HI/HIS...raqi_insurgency

Now bad marksmanship, poorly planned attacks and training does not define al Qaeda and foreign terrorists very well, do they? In any case, I'll be waiting for any verifiable evidence (albeit off the beaten path of this article and point I made) that demonstrates the origins of the insurgency stemming from foreign terrorists.

Edit 2: Another quick Google search came up with this:

quote:

How and when did the insurgency begin? A former Iraqi general, who now leads an insurgent group in Baghdad, told us he and others were planning resistance even before the U.S. invasion. The general, who goes by the alias Abu Omar, said: "Six months before the occupation, we started training and exercising resisting the American army in small groups." U.S. intelligence and military officials say many of the groups now making up the resistance were factions who benefited under Saddam Hussein, including army officers, a paramilitary group called the Saddam Fedayeen, and various Sunni tribal groups. They had their own networks for communications and even for financing to get around U.N. sanctions before the fall of Saddam. Does that mean the insurgency was inevitable? "The insurgency was not inevitable," said former Maj. Gen. James "Spider" Marks, who headed intelligence for U.S. ground forces in Iraq before and after the invasion. He and the Iraqi ex-general, Abu Omar, both say that what might have made the difference was the decision by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer in late May 2003 to disband the Iraqi army, throwing hundreds of thousands, mostly Sunnis, out of work. At about the same time in May 2003 -- the month after the regime was overthrown -- Saddam Hussein's deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri held a meeting in a car in Baghdad with four other top Saddam loyalists, where they decided to activate an insurgency, according to U.S. intelligence sources. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/12/schuster.column/index.html

Don't worry, DevilDog, they're just sources and quotes, so keep covering your eyes and ears.

And in regards to what comprises the insurgency, let's take a look at some more sources (since some folks disagree with a Pentagon assessment ):

Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division stated:

quote:

"99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi. http://archive.gulfnews.com/article.../09/168406.html

Another Pentagon analysis (*gasp*!) confirms this with over a 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi:

http://www.despardes.com/articles/sunnishia-1123.asp

Military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi mention that out of around 1300 insurgents captured, in 2005, none were Iraqi:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...4/ixportal.html

Ken Katzman, a Middle East expert on the Congressional Research Service had this to say in June, 2005:

quote:

"I still think 80 percent of the insurgency, the day to day activity, is Iraqi - the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire...[but] the foreign fighters attract the headlines with the suicide bombings, no question." http://www.ecssr.ac.ae/CDA/en/Profi...1250-00,00.html

In a battle at Tal Afar in Sept. of 2005, U.S. Army commander Colonel H. R. McMasters said the "vast majority" of insurgents captured there were "Iraqis and not foreigners.":

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...06EA2D48668.htm

Have a lovely New Years.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What the hell are you smoking? You mean to tell me that Pentagon reports are somehow irrelevant? Are you really trying to tell me how this report by an ANONYMOUS email at Cliff's corner at the fucking Bush-boot-licking National Review is somehow more relevant?

No, I just find it funny that you quote the administration you so hate.
Just find it ironic that's all.

quote:

And BTW, Fire, you might want to check your sources again on this little letter. This was, in fact, a DATED email from around November of 2005, maybe even earlier. This was also kinda revealing:

Yea, it sure does, thanks for pointing that out.
Strange that NRO would have posted that as something new?
I'll have to be a little more leery of that now as I actually have come across this kind of time-crossing before too...

quote:

I digress a bit. Anyway, I guess this is why your boy, Cliff, had to apologize for his bullshit?: http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...ZDk1OWFkNjEzZTk It's funny in his apology how he says an expert advising the ISG shared this year-old anonymous chain email with the group, and that group had a bit of a tiff over it. I don't know if I should be mad or scared over the idiocy of the whole thing. I guess a bit of both. In either case, you've been had.

Possibily yes, however:

quote:

TPMmuckraker.com says �that sentiment seems a bit out of place, given that the president himself admitted last week the United States isn't winning the war.� To which I�d reply: Huh? The morale of the Marines, their perspective on media coverage, and their view of whether they are making progress may rise and fall with the President�s evaluation of the situation � or it may not.

>>Source is the same as in the quote<<

Point being that I'll leave it to the guys on the ground to make their own assessments on who they're fighting exactly and how they're feeling.
The generals there have a slight advantage over a president that has no idea IMHO. (Something I'm sure we can both agree on)

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And by the way, when are you going to stop raping your dog? That's really sick, you know. Otherwise, I'd still maintain you raping your dog is pretty disgusting.

I don't need to pose a linky link to Zarquawi's letter
saying he wasn't going enough damage to the Coalition
to make them leave, so he wanted to cause a civil war
based on sectarian tensions and make them boil over...

And when he did bomb that mosque the militias didn't hold
back anymore and went full blown against each other, hence
that's when Iraqi sectarian violence overtook foreign
terrorist violence...

Shish do I have to break everything down barney-style for
you? You didn't quote that because you were wrong.

And yse Moral is VERY high for troops on the ground because
they are killing and arresting tons of bad guys everyday
and get lots of intel from Iraqis who are sick of the less
than 1% going around causing violence and death.
You're lame arguement is 'Bush just said we are not winning'.
But we are not losing, if you base winning on kills then we
are killing ALOT more of them than us. If you consider winning
the country stable, well the Iraqis need to make the hard
decisions to disband militias and reign in the sectarian
violence, American troops can only do so much on their own...

quote:

So wait, we're supposed to believe that the Shiite Iranians are supplying Sunni insurgents with IEDs? What a fucking joke. How could such an expert like Cliff May on foreign politics conflate the Iran/Shia/Sunni/al Qaeda into one gigantic fucking boogeyman? Incredible.

Umm, do you not pay attention to news? Or just lame bloggers?
You must have missed the parts about Iran giving Shite militias
arms, weapons, and training. And who would Iran like them
to use it against? The Sunnis AND the U.S. So yes, Iran gave
them shaped charges. As well as to foreign fighers. Are
you that naive? "Iran would never give bombs to sunnis" is
your arguement? Lame.

And posting about a man raping a dog is disturbing to say the
least kid. Yes I expect that from a child.
You people are pathetic, someone disagrees with your point
of view and you start cursing, name calling, and talking
about beastiality...

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I don't need to pose a linky link to Zarquawi's letter saying he wasn't going enough damage to the Coalition to make them leave, so he wanted to cause a civil war based on sectarian tensions and make them boil over... And when he did bomb that mosque the militias didn't hold back anymore and went full blown against each other, hence that's when Iraqi sectarian violence overtook foreign terrorist violence... Shish do I have to break everything down barney-style for you? You didn't quote that because you were wrong.

Quote what? Do you have a serious reading comprehension? I wasn't asking about the event itself. The EVENT itself is not in contention. What IS in contention, and what you continue to fail to provide is effectively demonstrating how that event CREATED the insurgency all by itself. I have provided links that demonstrate otherwise, not it's your turn to answer the question posed to you and demonstrate HOW this event with evidence supposedly caused the insurgency.

Please be specific in detail.

quote:

And yse Moral is VERY high for troops on the ground because they are killing and arresting tons of bad guys everyday and get lots of intel from Iraqis who are sick of the less than 1% going around causing violence and death. You're lame arguement is 'Bush just said we are not winning'. But we are not losing, if you base winning on kills then we are killing ALOT more of them than us.

Oh dear, surely we're not going to resort to the kill ratio argument like that which failed miserably in Vietnam, are we? Funny, in October Bush said that reports of these body counts are counter-productive strategy to the Vietnam war:

quote:

�We have made a conscious effort not to be a body-count team,� Bush said, in a clear reference to the tabulations of enemy killed that became a hallmark of the Vietnam War. And that, in turn, �gives you the impression that [U.S. troops] are just there � kind of moving around, directing traffic, and somebody takes a shot at them and they�re down.� http://article.nationalreview.com/?...Tc1YmQwYTgxNjY=

Oh, but now that's okay, champ? Now that's a successful strategy of showing how well we're winning? I'm just curious, you do realize that the insurgency is not a finite number of men/women, right? You do know they have quite the successful recruiting strategy, right?

quote:

If you consider winning the country stable, well the Iraqis need to make the hard decisions to disband militias and reign in the sectarian violence, American troops can only do so much on their own...

That's the first fucking thing you've said 1/2 correctly all day. There is only so much our brave military men/women can do, and it's painfully clear they continue to be short-changed.

So lemme get this straight - you're for a body count to show we're winning, but when it comes to country stability to demonstrate mission being accomplished you are against it or at least blame it on the Iraqis?

Damn, history is seemingly going to repeat itself with such a philosophy.

quote:

Umm, do you not pay attention to news? Or just lame bloggers? You must have missed the parts about Iran giving Shite militias arms, weapons, and training. And who would Iran like them to use it against? The Sunnis AND the U.S. So yes, Iran gave them shaped charges. As well as to foreign fighers. Are you that naive? "Iran would never give bombs to sunnis" is your arguement? Lame.

Read the fucking quote again, twit. I'll break it down for you real slow-like since that appears to be what you need:

quote:

"Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics....

From this we gather the following:

1. IEDs are supplied by Iran mostly, right?
2. Hezbollah types (Shiite) train the insurgents (Sunnis included?) in their use of tactics

Now how can #2, Hezbollah types which are Shiite and hate and fight the Sunnis train the insurgents which are a mix of different folks but are very much comprised of Sunni insurgents rising up against Shiite majority rule? Can you answer that once you read it real slow-like?

This ANONYMOUS email from a source over a year old did not in any way make the distinction that you made. In fact what you stated was exactly opposite of what he wrote. Are you able to make this simple distinction from your mistake in understanding, or shall we go over it again?

quote:

And posting about a man raping a dog is disturbing to say the least kid. Yes I expect that from a child. You people are pathetic, someone disagrees with your point of view and you start cursing, name calling, and talking about beastiality...

Funny, for a person that doesn't read my posts I'm surprised you saw this. Regardless, it is a point (albeit an extreme one) about posting without evidence to support any assertions made. You are doing this extensively throughout, and I wanted to demonstrate that anything I say about you raping your dog has about as much credence as any of your statements with no evidence to support them.

I want you to try supporting your statements from now on. I'm sick as fuck reading unsupported assertions from newbies such as yourself in this debating forum. The COR forum is full of shit like this, and I've tried hard to continue making the distinction between the two. If you feel this is too difficult for you, I will continue pointing out how worthless your posts continue to be without evidence to support them in any manner.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.