The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Killer drone attacks illegal, counter-productive > Comments

Killer drone attacks illegal, counter-productive : Comments

By Marjorie Cohn and Jeanne Mirrer, published 2/7/2012

Bush detained and tortured, but Obama just kills, remotely.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
This could bite the US on the bum one day. There are some clever people in some of the so called terrorist countries and it will not be beyond their capabilities to copy and perhaps improve on the US drone technology.
It would be ironic if the next "terrorist attack on the US were carried out by drones, operated from ships out at sea or even from clandestine bases in the US.
The Iranians have a drone they brought down and are probably reverse engineering it now
Posted by sarnian, Monday, 2 July 2012 9:54:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the first article I've seen from the Democrats that nails Obama as the militarist he undoubtedly has become. After all the hype associated with "Yes, we can", not only has he adopted the obscenity of drone bomb attacks killing innocent civilians, but he has also increased surveillance of American citizens by the security forces to an unprecedented degree and extended the notion of executive privilege well beyond where even Dick Cheney and George Bush wanted to take it.

To date, this sort of analysis has been lambasted by the Left as evidence of Tea Party madness so it's interesting to see Democrats starting to doubt the Obama magic. In the end, perhaps even the Left will start talking about the primacy of "We, the people".
Posted by Senior Victorian, Monday, 2 July 2012 10:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The use of armed UAVs (drones) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia has coincided with an absence of major Islamic terrorist attacks in the West since late 2005. The authors appear ignorant of that fact. The US's counter-terrorist success using drones should therefore not be taken for granted.

Furthemore it is no coincidence that the necessary targeting information was partly gained from Osama bin Laden (based on his electronic and written messages) from the time he moved into the Abbottabad compound in late 2005.

The planners of the Western counter-terrorist effort argue on legal grounds that the US drone campaigns are valid under international law. In contrast terrorists totally disregard the validity and existence of international law.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 2 July 2012 11:08:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohn & Mirrer: Strange, a couple of obviously Jewish ladies supporting the propagators of terror, strange. But, never the less, I'm up for some fun here.

1. President Obama has approved the killing of people, many of whom were not even identified before the kill order was given.

Obama doesn't personally approve each strike. All strikes are meticulously planed well ahead of time before approval by the "Base Commander." is given. They know who & why these particular people are where they are.

2. members of Al-Qaeda who are desirous of committing acts of terror against the people of the United States there is no basis in law for our government to declare war on individuals it considers a threat.

3. The United States has legal means to indict and extradite, both under U.S. and international law.

The US has tried that & for some strange reason the people named have refused to submit themselves to the Law. Go figure. So, just like the Police they have to go & arrest them where they are hiding. If they resist arrest then deadly force is deemed appropriate.

4. between 282 and 585 civilians have been killed, including more than 60 children.

I suppose, if we asked them nicely not to use their wives & children as human shields, do you think they might comply? Or, do they use their wives & children as a deterrent to being targeted on purpose? Another reason they have the W & C with them is because they don't trust their women to be on their own. Other men will rape them.

5. targeting "suspected militants" (called "personality strikes") in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, even killing a U.S. citizen, has authorized expanded drone attacks.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 July 2012 11:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
6. "patterns of behaviour" at sites controlled by a terrorist group. These are known as "signature strikes."

Suspected Militants? I think not. The US acts on the intelligence gathered. Satellites, Ground & electronic information & "patterns of behaviour"& go into meticulous planning well before a strike.

7. run afoul of the Geneva Conventions, which include wilful killing as a grave breach.
You have just negated your own argument.


8. Drone attacks also violate well-established principles of international law_______Grave breaches of Geneva are punishable as war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act.

The administration justifies its use of armed drones with reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed just days after the September 11 attacks.

In the AUMF, Congress authorized force against groups and countries that had supported the terrorist strikes.

Self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is a narrow exception to the Charter's prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force to settle international disputes. Countries may engage in individual or collective self-defence only in the face of an armed attack.

9. Navi Pillay recently declared that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan violate the international law principles of proportionality and distinction.

See above.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 July 2012 11:22:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
10. The United States has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICCPR states: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The Covenant also guarantees those accused of a crime the right to be presumed innocent and to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. Targeted killings abrogate these rights.

The US has to abide by these Laws. Do you think the Terrorists have to abide by them too. Or do you think it's OK for them to hide behind their human Shields & create mayhem as whenever they see fit.

11. They quoted Faisal Shahzad, who, while pleading guilty to trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square, told the judge, "When the drones hit, they don't see children."

Considering that Terrorists have killed thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent women & children, I haven't read any condemnation by you of what they have done. Even now that the US has pulled out of Iraq the terrorists killing goes on. Yet you haven't condemned them. WHY NOT?

13. Ibrahim Mothana, who wrote an op-ed in the Times titled "How Drones Help Al Qaeda," agrees. "Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair," Mothana observed.

Well he would claim that wouldn't he. Since he supports the Terrorist cause. I beg to differ. & my opinion if just a valid as his. The Radical Muslim Mullers are rife in Yemen, & Somalia. Somalia the country where the West saved the children 20 odd years ago. Now these same people are trying to destroy the West. They are the new terrorists & maritime highjackers urged on by the Mullers.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 July 2012 11:23:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely, anyone who reads this article will be alarmed by the fact that, under Gillard, we are moving ever closer to the hegemonic, killer nation called America.

To have such an imperial nation as a friend causes other nations to see Australia as part of the American plan to control the world using military force. Given the region we live in, this can't be a good thing.

When will Australia wake up and see what the U.S. really is rather than what it claims to be?

http://dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Monday, 2 July 2012 12:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G: Surely, anyone who reads this article will be alarmed by the fact that, under Gillard, we are moving ever closer to the hegemonic, killer nation called America.

Can I change that a bit?

Surely, anyone who reads this article will be alarmed by the fact that, under Gillard, we are moving ever closer to the hegemonic, killer Islamic Nations.
Bringing in the boats Loaded with M
Muslims dedicated to changing Australia into an Islamic Nation.

Well, I guess that's my 4 posts for the next 24 hours. Please take advantage of my absence.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 July 2012 12:29:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb;
If the US had not invaded two sovereign nations with the help of Australia and sundry others, there would be no reason for the population of those nations to take refuge from the ongoing killing and mayhem in those nations.
In fact the thought occurs that if Bush had not stolen the election from Al Gore, the world would be a whole lot better place.
Posted by sarnian, Monday, 2 July 2012 2:37:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bush ,Blair and Cheney hav already been found guilty in a Kuala Lumpa wars crimes tribunal last year.

What the elites fear is that if we in the West become too aware,they will face serious crimes and go to gaol or worse.This is why they are expanding the wars and look like picking a fight with Russia/China.

Our lunatics are in charge of the nukes.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 2 July 2012 2:46:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course flying plane loads of innocent passengers is legal I suppose.

Most Of the problems of the world can be blamed on the poms & the yanks, but not for taking out a few terrorists & their fellow travelers.

No, their worst act was that of stopping their proven gun boat diplomacy, that had kept the world a safe place for most of it's population, of all countries a couple of hundred years too soon.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 2 July 2012 4:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very well said JAYB !

Yes you maybe able to argue some of these killings are unfair to an innocent civilian but this human warmongering race that we are has been targeted for many years by terrorists with the pain they spread all over the world in the name of a religion.
It is sad we have to resort to this kind of brutal life but sometimes you have to be tough to get a result and I applaud the USA for ridding the world of these scum who have no problems with killing thousands of innocent bystanders but what's worse is they continually murder members of their own country and religion!

Do we sit on our hands and hope they just go away?
Posted by Sharky, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 5:47:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ sarnian
<< If the US had not invaded two sovereign nations… there would be no reason for the population of those nations to take refuge>>

Total nonsense.
1) There has been on going fighting between shia/sunni Moslems for a millennium (long before the US & OZ were formed)
2) They are not fleeing FROM war, they are fleeing TO our affluence and our easy and open welfare system.

@ Arjay
<< Bush ,Blair and Cheney hav already been found guilty in a Kuala Lumpa wars crimes tribunal last year.>>

So now, I guess, we can look forward to the Malaysian judiciary holding similar trails of the Malaysian hierarchy for their (past)massacres & (on going)suppression of non-Bumiputeras!
http://worldpress.org/2298.cf
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 8:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

In the case of Iraq.....the U.S. and it's allies did "cause" the refugee crisis. Notwithstanding Sunni-Shiite animosities, it was the invasion that destabilised the country...which, I might add, was one of the most advanced in the Middle-East prior to having the daylights bombed out of it.

Good old Saddam was just hunky-dory with America while he was belting up Iran.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 8:09:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warfare has never been pretty, and innocent civilians are often the ones to pay the price. Just ask the relatives of the 911 attack victims. This is exacerbated when combatants use civilians as cover and shields as the Taliban do.

The drones allow strikes on the Taliban leaders and prevent groups from massing. The result is that the type of organised resistance that drove the Russian forces (many times stronger than the coalition forces there) has been largely ineffective.

The real issue that these bleeding hearts are trying to raise is whether it is legal to strike people that are trying to kill you in another country. The answer is that Pakistan has given permission for the US to strike these guerrillas in the areas that they no longer have control, and the Taliban has "declared war" on the coalition. So the issue of illegality and sovereignty is essentially resolved.

Given that any alternative type of strike would inflict far greater casualties, the options are reduced to fight back or do nothing. I wonder what the world would have been like if Hitler's Germany's borders were respected.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 8:53:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister; See my first post.
Posted by sarnian, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 9:47:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
There was Shia Sunni conflict long before the US arrived –only it wasn’t splashed across the pages/screens of the worlds media.
And Saddam (a Sunni dog) made it clear to one-and-all that he was top dog and brooked no challenges.

US intervention removed the alpha-dog . And that set a whole lot of lesser dogs a jostling in the hope they could usurp the alpha spot
That spot now seems to have been secured by a Shia clique.

However, none of that caused the “asylum seeker” flow to OZ.

Those who felt threatened simply relocated –till the wrangling settled --outside the cities of conflict, or if need be next door to Iran, Jordan or Turkey. [ many/most of whom I might add are now returning home to Iraq!]

The opportunists, however, caught a flight to Malaysia or Indonesia , rote learnt a few sob stories – then boated to OZ.
Where the were met by a immigration policy in disarray, a raft of handouts/entitlements and a warm welcome from the left [And that lot, will never return to Iraq –except on periodic holidays!]

As I said before, I would have much rather us (i.e. the West) not getting involved in Iraq.
We would have been much better served to have directed the money to the space program/NASA, and had left the Middle East to its own *devices*.

But had we done that, I have no doubt that in some alternative/ parallel universe we would now be reading posts from Poirot & Co on that worlds OLO criticizing us for not getting involved.
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:40:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian,

With all due respect, drones of the type used by the US require a huge support base of satellites, computers, avionics etc. Let alone the custom ICs, optics etc. Even if they understand them, the chances of replication are close to zero.

The closest they got was to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>This could bite the US on the bum one day. There are some clever people in some of the so called terrorist countries and it will not be beyond their capabilities to copy and perhaps improve on the US drone technology.<<

This is how arms races have always been run in the past: I see no reason why it would be different in this case. But the thing about arms races is that it is usually the people with the most money who win. And the US has good form when it comes to arms races. They're definitely the favourite and in a non-handicapped race they're the ones I'd back.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:48:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian: If the US had not invaded two sovereign nations with the help of Australia and sundry others, there would be no reason for the population of those nations to take refuge from the ongoing killing and mayhem in those nations.

You must be very very young. They were leaving Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Indonesia & Bangladesh. Anywhere where there is an Islamic Dictatorship. Then there is Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Angola D. R. of the Congo, Burundi, Rwanda & Uganda & China where there are Communistic Dictatorships. They have been leaving these places in droves for the West long before the West got involved in any of the Wars.

Better do a lot more research dearie before you get in over your head. Or, have you learnt what you know at a Uni. Well, there a fail for the real world right there.
Poirot: the U.S. and its allies did "cause" the refugee crisis in Iraq.
Poirot please read the above again & SPQR's post above yours as well. Shadow Minister is of course correct with regards to the Drones.
By the way. Australia invented the Drone in the 1950's. It was called Jindivick. It was mainly used as a target for Guided missiles but it could take evasive action.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 1:40:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb,

Don't patronise moi, dear....the refugee crisis emanating from Iraq was and is directly attributable in root cause to the application of sanctions and the invasion of that country by the U.S. and it's allies.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 1:51:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot: Don't patronise moi, dear....the refugee crisis emanating from Iraq was and is directly attributable in root cause to the application of sanctions and the invasion of that country by the U.S. and its allies.

Poirot: Please read the paragraph, in my post, above your 'rot. Hmmm. Have you ever asked yourself why the UN placed sanctions on these countries. Could it have something to do with terrorism & how they were treating their own people. Hmmm. I wonder. Still history for some people only goes back as far as yesterday if the truth doesn't agree with their ideology.

SPQR you mentioned Malaysia as an entry point to Australia. These people land in Malaysia because they get turned around in Indonesia. Once in Malaysia they take a quick boat ride across the straight to Indonesia. Most of them are in Indonesia illegally anyway & the Indonesians don't want them to hang around so, in reality, they turn a blind eye when they get on the boats.

Malaysia doesn't stop them from going to Indonesia because they don't want the problem. Malaysia is one of the most racist countries in the world. They don't recognise the Orang Asli as human until they convert to Islam. If you are not native Malay you are not allowed to own property. Even if your ancestors came to Malaya with Princess Hong Lim Poh, Daughter of the Chinese Ming Emperor Cheng Hua, & her 500 retainers to marry Sultan Bendahar in 1465.

Sarnian: To learn what's involved in a drone strike go to. http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/inside-a-us-control-centre-for-drones/1630320023001/
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/warfare-by-remote-part-1/662045746001/
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/warfare-by-remote-part-2/662045747001/
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/warfare-by-remote-part-3/662045748001/

Plenty more at this site.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 3:25:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"With all due respect, drones of the type used by the US require a huge support base of satellites, computers, avionics etc. Let alone the custom ICs, optics etc. Even if they understand them, the chances of replication are close to zero."

And China, India, et al do not have lots money let alone a LOT of intelligence?
How long before China has a drone system up and running?
India has a lot of computer expertise.
Sorry but your Patronising is apparent
Posted by sarnian, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 3:28:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian,

I was unaware that India and China were terrorist countries, and were plotting to launch drones from ships and on shore. I had thought their Nukes and ICBMs were more of a threat.

Drones are built to be small and unobtrusive and to deliver relatively small ordinance with pin point accuracy. They are not intended for large destruction, are easy to shoot down and trace would be a stupid way to start a major war.

I try not to be patronizing, next time I will simply ignore the ridiculous.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 4:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>This could bite the US on the bum one day. There are some clever people in some of the so called terrorist countries and it will not be beyond their capabilities to copy and perhaps improve on the US drone technology.<<

>>And China, India, et al do not have lots money let alone a LOT of intelligence?
How long before China has a drone system up and running?
India has a lot of computer expertise.<<

China? Where does China come in to it? I thought we were discussing the possibility of Islamic terrorists obtaining drone technology. What do Islamic terrorists have to do with the Chinese military? Looks like somebody is trying to shift the goalposts halfway through the game: naughty, naughty.

Let me rephrase some of my earlier post:

>>But the thing about arms races is that it is usually the people with the most money who win. And the US has good form when it comes to arms races. They're definitely the favourite and in a non-handicapped race between the US and terrorists the US are the ones I'd back.<<

An arms race between China and the US is a whole different story. Of course China are going to have much shorter odds than a bunch of terrorists. But that's not really relevant here is it? The article made no mention of drone strikes on Chinese nationals or within Chinese territory. I don't think it's very likely that the Chinese will start launching drone strikes on the US or its allies as reprisals for attacks that haven't happened. That would be silly.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 4:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb,

Terrorism?

You should brush up on a little history yourself - starting with this:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 4:48:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting exposé of the Iraq/Iran war Poirot. I figured it out back in the 80's. If these two wanted to destroy one another we should help. I guess Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils at that time. It also probably explains why the Yanks were worried about CW in the Gulf War. We must also take into account that this was 80's & the Cold War was still in full swing. But this has nothing to do with the present terrorism. It was after that all settled down that the problem with people fleeing Iraq started. Saddam didn't trust a number of different peoples within his own country, of which there are at least five different groups as well as a number of different Islamic Sects, which all hate one another. Saddams persecution of these groups caused great numbers of peoples to flee the country.

Of course you have to hate yanks, that's a given. Everybody does. Tall poppy Syndrome. Even I think most yanks are rather bombastically stupid. Muslims see the yanks as the epitome of Christian Evil. They hate anyone that's not Muslim so it's easy to hate yanks. Therefore they bomb them & become terrorists. Life simple when you break it down to its fundamentals. That's Fundamentalist Muslims verses Fundamentalist Christians. Both of them are evil.

But I do believe the subject is supposed to be about, "Is using Drones to eliminate your enemy legal?" Well my view is that it is.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 9:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb,

I agree that we should get back to the subject, although when discussing the Middle-East one thing tends to lead to another.

Btw,I don't hate yanks - I have one for a son-in-law.
When a superpower exercises its clout, it invariably uses that power to suit its own ends. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be misled by altruistic rhetoric that seeks to camouflage the true nature of self-serving actions.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot:
1. Btw,I don't hate yanks - I have one for a son-in-law.

2. When a superpower exercises its clout, it invariably uses that power to suit its own ends. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be misled by altruistic rhetoric that seeks to camouflage the true nature of self-serving actions.

1. Nah. I don't really hate yanks either. I was attached to the 173d Airborne in Vietnam. I met a lot of good ones, but I met a lot of overly nationalistic dills to & they do seem to get them in their Government.

2. agreed.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 4 July 2012 8:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drones are great, they rebalence the assymetry or Islomo terror techniques. It is humane as not even theirr troops are particularly targeted, rather its entire leadership are, their Generals in the front line! We should encourage it more as a brand of fighting smarter not harder.
Posted by McCackie, Saturday, 7 July 2012 11:53:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy