Article

2004-09-06 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-09-06 1:39:10 PM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Not wise. Not practicable. Can you imagine hunting down the massive bin Laden clan, across the globe, and killing every last person? What good would it do? I prefer the idea of killing the terrorists' comrades-at-arms, suppliers and shelterers, who are mutually culpable.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-06 2:04:10 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:04:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by UFO TROLL 2004-09-06 2:14:06 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:14:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not really all that impressed by his idea. It wont stop the creed. It will just fuel it more, to some extent. The cuthroater have bases where the myth of their creed is taught.

Posted by Lucky 2004-09-06 2:16:41 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:16:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Great idea, Boris! You run along and get on it. The truth needs to be heard! Somewhere else!

Posted by Bulldog 2004-09-06 2:18:33 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:18:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Jew Masters Of the Universe TROLL 2004-09-06 2:30:15 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:30:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Do we have to put up with Boris and his fellow idiots?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-06 2:36:35 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-09-06 2:36:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#7
"Not wise. Not practicable."

You are wrong. It is wise, and practicle. Also, it would be just the sort of thing the Islamists understand.

I would carry it just a little bit further though. Instead of the families, in addition, we destroy their city/town/hamlet/tribe etc.

Implacably, unemotionally and relentlessly we should bring wholesale death and destruction at all levels of Islamic society. We need to do this until they beg for mercy, and then, we continue until they themselves grasp the sword and strike down those amongst themselves that do evil.

CiT

Posted by CiT 2004-09-06 2:49:33 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:49:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 It's practical provided we have local proxies to actually do the wet work. All the more reason to get serious, now, about a deep and close relationship, including training and direct assistance, with Russia, India, Turkey and of course Israel.

Posted by lex 2004-09-06 2:56:16 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:56:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 No, civilization cannot be defended with barbaric measures, lest we become barbarians ourselves. In this war we will kill innocents, but not deliberately. On the day we start to kill children deliberately for retaliatory purposes, we lose everything we stand for.
We must target the people responsible for terror: Not only the terrorists, also those who aid, abet, finance terror. We must target the Wahabi preacher, the mullah who calls for jihad, the politicians who give them shelter, the businessmen who finance them. States as a whole can become legitimate targets, but never must we deliberately target the innocent.
We must defend ourselves, but we must not give up what we defend: our freedom and humanity.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-06 2:57:02 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:57:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Since we know most of their identities, I propose that we kill the mothers, the fathers, the sisters, the brothers, the spouses and the children of the terrorists. Killing the mother of a terrorist renders her no more dead and no more innocent than the victims murdered by her son or daughter.

While I'm not prepared to back this sort of "meat grinder" approach to fighting terrorism, I do think that monitoring terror "families" is a very good idea. Terrorism needs to be made a DNA crime, and those related by blood to known terrorists should be watched closely.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-06 2:57:24 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:57:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 In the discussion of the Nepalese mosque attack several people supported that action as an appropriate response to Islamic abetting of terror attacks. (Whether that particular mosque promoted terrorism was unclear. The justification given was collective guilt.) I objected because I believe that responses to terrorism should be appropriate, effective, and targeted. The random punishment of Muslims pushes moderate Muslims toward the radicals.

However, targeting the family of a terrorist does seem to me to be appropriate, effective, and targeted. (Though it is against Western concepts of law and justice.)

It is a targeted response that should not be interpreted as an attack on all Islam.

It is appropriate in that family members bear far more responsibility for the terroristâs actions than do random Muslims. Did the family members encourage his terrorism? Could they have reported him in time to stop it? Did they abet his terrorism by providing support?

It should be effective since family is very important in Arab cultures. Also terrorism seems to ârunâ in many Arab families.

I donât favor killing young children. Perhaps the young children could be adopted by Jewish or Christian families?

In practice, the extent of collective kin punishment could be adjusted to match the horrific nature of the terrorism. Kin who actively aid the hunt and eradication of terrorists would not be held accountable.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-09-06 3:13:08 PM|| 2004-09-06 3:13:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 The DNA trackback will target the community culture center, where all the 'big ideas" are hashed out, and where certain grown ups who give weight to those cultural ideals make their living.

Hope somebody can hop to it!

Posted by Lucky 2004-09-06 3:34:21 PM|| 2004-09-06 3:34:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I say take out the Madrassas and the Mullahs who preach the hate. Then work our way down the list until we find more "cooperative" islamic leaders.

But I think that the main point, is how to dish out negative payment to this who don't mind losing their own lives? The answer is, you can't. You just have to kill as many of them before they kill us and pray to the Holy Gods that they never get the bomb. I don't know, just my 2 cents.

Posted by JackAssFestival 2004-09-06 3:43:03 PM|| 2004-09-06 3:43:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Kill the mullahs......terrorism will stop when you kill the true leaders.

Posted by gawdamman 2004-09-06 3:43:03 PM|| 2004-09-06 3:43:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Lets face it. A victory in this war requires a destruction of an idea.

A targeting of a family isn't out of the question especially if you realize the mafianess of it all.

But the tribe gets their moral ligitamcy from the mullah at their shrine. So that shrine has to go too.

Buy doing the targeting agressively and an overwhelming propaganda effort aimed at the youth to get them to scorn the old foggeis ways. An effort to get reforming enfluences on the old ways. Something I'm not sure about, as to me, islam is a very nasty thing with the seeds of madness, but what do I know.

Anyways, like I said, Ya know, victory and all.

Posted by Lucky 2004-09-06 3:54:34 PM|| 2004-09-06 3:54:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 This is a difficult question, with answers that must be tailored to the circumstances. The US Civil War was the first modern total war fought with with extensive use of mechanical devices. Total war was known before, as for instnace Genghis Khan, but on a pre-industiral basis. I've been a student of the civil war for a number of years, and WT Sherman was the first modern general to understand the implications and methods of total war. As that war progressed, it became obvious that defeating southern armies would not by itself win the war. As Sherman himself said, it was necessary to subdue the WILL of the southern people so that they lost the desire to fight. He said he wanted war to become so terrible to them, that for a hundred years they would remember it, and never again look to that solution. The path of destruction he laid across Georgia and the Carolinas fufilled that purpose, although Sherman ingenuously claimed that he tried unsuccessfully to restrain the marauders. The bombing raids on cities during the second world war were a logical extension of that form of combat. They were not done for actual military purposes, but to destroy the will of the enemy population.

What is necessary here is to decide to what extent this war resembles that model, and proceed accordingly. I don't think that we need to target specific families. I think we need to decide to what extent to utilize what are essentially weapons of terror ourselves. We would flatter ourselves saying we aren't that kind of people, when the civil war and WWII show that we certainly are that kind of people. We can and did kill large numbers of civilians &/or destroy the economic basis of their lives. The question is: do we need to?

Posted by DLS 2004-09-06 3:56:26 PM|| 2004-09-06 3:56:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Jew Overlord of the Serfs TROLL 2004-09-06 4:00:01 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:00:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 TGA , we did not win WII by avoiding barbaric measures. We just subcontracted them to the Soviets or performed them at 25,000 feet.

However, we are not yet prepared to go to these lengths. Note that in 1862 when Sherman said it would take an army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to defeat the Confederacy, he was thought crazy. In 1942, we used precision daylight bombing; by 1944 no one minded that it wasn't so precise. But one or two more 9/11s and the gloves will come off.

Children will not be targets, nor will blood revenge be pursued. We will simply destroy the civilization that seeks to destroy us. How many deaths that will require will be up to them, not us. How to kill them will be our decision.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-06 4:13:57 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:13:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 DLS,

Sherman's tactics won he war but it's not clear the North won the peace. As in Iraq now, the old confederate regime's guerrillas regrouped around ruthless and bold leaders like NB Forrest and were able, via the KKK and other shadowy resistance groups, to thwart reconstruction.

Don't confuse the war plan with the political strategy.

Posted by lex 2004-09-06 4:15:43 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:15:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Lex,

How did the way Sherman won the war have anything to do with the lack of will in the North to reinitiate violence against the South three years later to stop a guerilla movement? And how many more dead would you suggest the North spend to "pacify" the South?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-06 4:20:33 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:20:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Bulldog: Not wise. Not practicable

True, but oh, so satisfying.

Posted by Anonymous6329 2004-09-06 4:31:30 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:31:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The extent to which the north failed to secure the peace was a political problem, centering around the question that no one, north or south, had been able to successfully answer: what do we do with the blacks? The rise of the KKK came about because of the lack of answer to that question, which was simply based on the pervasive racism of both sides. No one wanted the blacks around. And certainly no one saw them as anywhere near the equal of the whites in any way. There never was an obvious political answer to that question.

I don't see a similar circumstance to the present situation, since for the most part western and islamic people live physically separate from each other(all right, the French, but who cares about them anyway?). What I do see is an entire "civilization" rooted in hatred of the west. We can't change that any time soon, so we need to decide if we wish to subdue their will to resist. I don't offer the answer, only ask the question.

Posted by DLS 2004-09-06 4:33:57 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:33:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Perhaps our basic problem is that we fight this war on our own principles. It is better, I think, to fight a war of their making using their own cultural referents. Vendetta, blood feud. You have killed mine and I will kill you and yours until you are no more. "An eye for an eye" is part of their religious background as well as Jews and Christians. Let it be so.

Posted by Anonymous6330 2004-09-06 4:38:35 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:38:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 A6330, I know what you mean but more than an eye for an eye will be requied while there is islamic jihad. Thats a cultural norm that has to be stamped out. Thats why I'm so pissed about the lack of an intellectual attack on jihad. Destroy the machine that makes that and replace that machine with better, shinier machine.

I think that fits in well with-in our own principles. I do not wish to step outside of what I hold to be truth. I'm hopeing for ways to win the war effectively, like walking the king on a chessboard. An eye for an eye is clan warfare that does not lead to victory. It just leads to one losing another digit every other day.

There is no doubt in my mind that the major holy sites of islam, the pillars of islam, must be destroyed. Or at the minimum change so drastically that it resembles something intirely different. There is madness in it. Something that can be found in any religion unless cooler heads prevail. Problem with islam is that all the cooler heads get their throats cut.

Posted by Lucky 2004-09-06 5:07:47 PM|| 2004-09-06 5:07:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 And also, in the vain of an "eye for an eye" when islamic jihad attacked the WTC they also attacked other pillars of our society. A childish attempt at a sucker punch.

Islamic jihad needs all of islam at war with all of the world. Thats why they use barbaric acts. To cause the repulsion of islam thereby activating all of islam into the fight. It's a close thing right now.

How much Iraq and Afganistan matter will only be realized when those fronts actually have an impact on islamic jihad. And unless the front on islamic jihad is opened then I have very little confidence in the Iraqi/Afganistan current mission. (not the one that was accomplished)

When the Koranitic's pillars are destroyed what can jihadies hope for. The book will be meaningless.

Posted by Lucky 2004-09-06 5:38:13 PM|| 2004-09-06 5:38:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 The idea is stupid. I don't believe killing terrorists necessarily creates more terrorists, but I do believe slaughtering family members would create more terrorists.

The policy should be to spoil the bodies, to ensure they are unclean, bury them with swine or whatever we feel would really get under their skin. Take the revenge out on their visions of the afterlife and they'll be less rushed to get to the afterlife.

Since moderate Islam tells us again and again that the terrorists are not following Islam they will be in a tough spot telling us that we can't follow such a policy.

Posted by RJSchwarz 2004-09-06 7:35:58 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-09-06 7:35:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 feed em to swine.

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-06 7:38:32 PM|| 2004-09-06 7:38:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 I wasn't doin nuffin!

Posted by Troll Baiting No Fun Anymore 2004-09-06 7:53:05 PM|| 2004-09-06 7:53:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 The path of destruction [Sherman] laid across Georgia and the Carolinas fufilled that purpose, although Sherman ingenuously claimed that he tried unsuccessfully to restrain the marauders.

What Sherman did on his march was to tell the civilians to leave, then destroyed the cities, farms, etc.

The equivalent to this would be destroying a nation's infrastructure, including its industry, oil production (if any), power grid, maritime shipping, etc.

To do with with terrorists may take efforts that would most certainly be extreme.

For example, prohibiting nationals from certain countries from immigrating (including forced deportation of existant noncitizens), obtaining citizenship, work permits, owning property, setting up businesses, etc.

It could also extend to a complete, unconditional prohibition on trade and financial transactions with any designated nation or organization, with extreme punitive measures on violators (including prison and confiscation of all personal and corporate assets).

It all depends on how much will the aggressor has, and its willingness to absorb present and future conequences.

Posted by Pappy 2004-09-06 8:23:31 PM|| 2004-09-06 8:23:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Heh. I'm of the "Kill Them Now" tendency. I'm not saying target innocents; I'm saying that collective punishment is one of the most effective uses of force. Don't kill only innocents, just kill them all.
My due respect for moral equivalence and ethics stops at the advent of a threat to our entire culture, perhaps even civilization. If anybody thinks that carpetbombing Germany in WWII makes us "just as bad" or "the same" as NAZIs, you're FARKING idiots. If people have a problem using, in our own defense, the methods terrorists find so effective against us, then they might want to consider the logical consequence of failure to adapt.
Just wait until we have Beslans happening in our own schools, and car bombs at our border crossings. Muslims aren't really exhibiting any strong tendency toward betraying their own. What're we going to have, UN ROE? They're going to be holed up in enclaves that will make Koresh in Waco look like nothing, with their fingers on the buttons for disasters in our major cities, and what, we can't kill the babies and puppies?
Jesus wept.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-09-06 8:35:28 PM|| 2004-09-06 8:35:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The whole question seems to me to be something that can be boiled down to a grand mathematical model - starting with a 6.2 billion (or whatever) global population, factor in current and projected birth rates for moslem and non-moslem populations, and then factor in the trend line of non-moslem fatalities at the hands of moslem fanatics. It seems to me that, factored out far into the future, Islam wins - they annihilate the non-moslem population of earth.

So - if we continue on present course, we lose the battle of annihilation (or - more accurately, our descendants lose that battle).

Some may argue that radical Islam is not seeking to totally and absolutely annihilate all non-Islamic beings on this planet - that if the Israelis would simply hand over all their homes, government facilities, and businesses to the nearest Palestinian, and then politely swim out emn masse into the Mediterranean Sea, and drown themselves to the last individual - then radicak Iskam woulkd be satisfied, and beat their suicide belts into work clothes.

Well, it seems to me that this is clearly not an answer that would satisfy radical Islam - even if this absurd degree of cooperation was offered. The position of the Islamacists is clear - we must all convert to Islam or die a grisly death.

We are in a war of annihilation - NOT a war to destroy our will to fight. Sherman did NOT try to expunge all human life from Georgia. Truman did not seek to destroy the entire population of Japan. Islam is ABSOLUTELY trying to cleanse the earth of every last non-believer.

So - what is the non-Islam world to do? Shall we actively pursue genocide of the entire Moslem culture - to the last child? Personally, if I could push that button, I'd be sorely tempted to do so - in the interests of generations of my culture yet to be born, at the expense of never-to-be-born jihadi spawn. But - not practical.

So - what is practical? Well, I don't have the answers. But I do believe in practical experimentation. A few suggestions, to carry out as experiments:

1) Isolate and level to absolute and sterile wasteland the cities of Najaf, Al Fallujah, and Samara in Iraq - including the Imam Ali shrine. Everything dies. Islam screams, and we just shrug. Lesson 1 - we too can play hardball against populations.

2) Erase the Iranian air force - for that matter - erase all traces of aviation in Iran. Task Isreal to destroy all suspected nuclear sites in Iran.

3) Assign Israel to clean out anything they see as problematic in Damascus. Provide unlimited logistical support to this effort.

4) Establish a protectorate state of Arabia to run present-day Saudi Arabia (well, at least the oil producing part). Put the meanest, nastiest people we can find in charge of supressing the resulting backlast from House of Saud.

5) Send "cleaning teams" out to "aggressively" retire all fundamentaist Islamic Imams everywhere - with extreme prejudice. This is no time to split hairs - take out the elders, and all their understudies. Lots of innocents will be struck down with the guilty. This is unfortunate - well, feel bad for a few minutes, then get over it. We are seeking to serve the greater good of a world of future diversity.

OK, when all the above are accomplished - stop. These were preliminary experiments, to see what the effects might be on the spread of intolerant Islamacism. So - evaluate the results. Then, if future prospects for the long-term survival of non-Moslem cultures and populations do not appear to have improved - theb move to the SERIOUS phase of extermination of Islam from planet earth.

"Total war" is defeating the will of a foreign political entity to prolong the fight. It is not "ultimate war" - for that, we must turn to war of annihilation - closely related to genocide.

Rant now finished. Ahhh, that feels better.

TLR

Posted by Lone Ranger 2004-09-06 8:36:47 PM|| 2004-09-06 8:36:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 TLR - Welcome back! I can see you've been saving up... and I am there at the same place. Excellent rant and astute situational view.

At the same time we must split some of our attention to the internal enemies of freedom, as well. For reasons that do not compute in the rational mind, they are determined to subvert and defeat from within any such plan for survival. Some of them are Muslims, as well. It appears to me that we will be forced to treat the socialists, and their insane ideological allies, the same as the Islamists... ultimately, they have the same end goal.

Posted by .com 2004-09-06 8:53:56 PM|| 2004-09-06 8:53:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Lone Rangers comments are what I had in mind, that is, to find someone to difine what we need to look at in terms of total war in this context. What do we need to do to destroy the enemies will? Not kill all of them, just break them down. The answer bears looking at: destroy their ability to make war, destroy their ability to want to make war, kill the people who got them into this state.

OBTW pappy, Sherman did at times tell people to leave certain locations such as cities, but his army marched on a path that it times stretched 60 miles wide. He didn't tell individual people to leave, he couldn't. They left because his "bummers" were coming with matches in hand. Sherman knew it too. Total war meant total war. As he assured Grant before leaving on his 300 mile march: "If Georgia can support a millions of people, we shall not starve."

Posted by DLS 2004-09-06 9:17:53 PM|| 2004-09-06 9:17:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 It seems to me that WT Sherman did his best not to "subdue the WILL of the southern people" but to subdue the will of the citizens of Georgia and the Carolinas to live. Here is a prime example of of someone executing terrorism on his own people. It makes me want to vomit to read the justifications of Shermans actions being spewed in this feedback. Diarrhea of the keyboard I call it. So I guess its okay to set fire to cities of innocent people as long as you tell them to get out beforehand ( or at least afterward you tell everyone that you told them to get out). I guess its okay to let innocent AMERICANS starve. I guess its okay to burn their houses, their farms, pillage their livestock, take their food, rape their women. Sherman was a hero! God you people make me sick........."Total war meant total war". Machiavellian means to an end huh? You ever wonder why slaves started VOLUNTEERING to serve in the Confederate army in 1865? Because of the murdering TERRORIST William T. Sherman, that why. Excuse me while I lose my lunch.

Posted by BombIranNow 2004-09-06 10:46:55 PM|| 2004-09-06 10:46:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Feel better, BombIranNow? Sounds like a personal problem. Ya might want to get some counseling to help you get over it.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-09-07 1:37:21 AM|| 2004-09-07 1:37:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Mr. Bomb Iran Now, you'd better get your thinking straight, particularly if you think we need to bomb Iran.
Gen. Sherman (and Grant) were given pretty much a free hand by the Yankees and Lincoln to "break the back" of Southern resistance any way they could, because this is what had to be done to save the Union, end the Civil War and end the practice of slavery.
Brutal? Yes. Necessary? Yes.
And yes, I'm a greatgrand-daughter of Dixie, too.
This is also why we used the Bomb on the Japanese to bring the end of WWII--they wouldn't surrender and give up their fight to conquer the world for Shintoism.
In the same way, we're going to have a wage an all-out war--Us or them--on the IslamoFascists sooner or later.
So we probably will have to bomb Iran.
But you can't let your beloved Confederacy off the hook--they deserved the burning of Atlanta.
(And those slaves who joined the rebs either didn't know better or were forced to leave their plantations to defend the South.
Life on the plantation was all they knew and some of their descendants aren't weaned from it over 140 years later.)

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-09-07 1:47:18 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-09-07 1:47:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 TLR: I like your play list.
Jen: Amen.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-09-07 1:58:17 AM|| 2004-09-07 1:58:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Dear BombIranNow. You're just a little confused. Slave in the South NEVER volunteered to enter the southern army, because the southerners were horrified at the very thought. As one southern general said: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our entire theory of government is wrong." Slaves were used extensively to build works and as drovers however. There was some talk in the southern gov't in feb 1865 about bringing slaves into their army, but nothing ever happened. On the other hand 110,000 blacks did join the northern army.

Was it OK to pillage, burn and desolate in 1864? It was necessary. Tough on the people in his way? Yup. A means to an end? Yes. There was also an indirect military purpose. Every day that Sherman marched closer to the carolina's and virginia brought him one day closer to Lee's western flank. The day he arrived at that flank the war was over. Lee knew this all too well. Sherman wasn't a nice man. So what? He did the job the way it needed to be done. Means to an end? Damn straight.

Posted by DLS 2004-09-07 7:02:30 AM|| 2004-09-07 7:02:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by UFO 2004-09-06 2:11:16 PM|| [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 2:11:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by UFO 2004-09-06 2:11:16 PM|| [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 2:11:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by UFO 2004-09-06 2:14:06 PM|| [http://politicsandcurrentevents.com] 2004-09-06 2:14:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Jew Overlord of the Serfs 2004-09-06 4:00:01 PM|| 2004-09-06 4:00:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Jew Masters Of the Universe 2004-09-06 2:30:15 PM|| 2004-09-06 2:30:15 PM|| Front Page Top

17:50 UFO
22:04 UFO
21:36 UFO
21:25 UFO
23:17 UFO
14:33 Jew Masters Of the Universe
14:31 Jew Masters Of the Universe
14:30 Jew Masters Of the Universe
14:27 Jew Masters Of the Universe
10:33 Jew Masters Of the Universe
16:00 Jew Overlord of the Serfs
14:14 UFO
13:39 UFO
14:11 UFO
14:11 UFO
12:53 UFO
00:19 UFO
23:51 UFO
07:02 DLS
06:20 Shipman
03:11 Zenster
03:05 Zenster
02:49 Zenster
02:17 GreatestJeneration