• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to occupation, not Islamic fundamentalism.

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
July 18, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world’s largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration’s current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.

The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?

(Snip)

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
Cont'd



That doesn’t mean that the existing suicide terrorists will not want to keep going. I am not saying that Osama bin Laden would turn over a new leaf and suddenly vote for George Bush. There will be a tiny number of people who are still committed to the cause, but the real issue is not whether Osama bin Laden exists. It is whether anybody listens to him. That is what needs to come to an end for Americans to be safe from suicide terrorism.

TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?

RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.

TAC: Has the IRA used suicide terrorism?

RP: The IRA did not. There were IRA members willing to commit suicide—the famous hunger strike was in 1981. What is missing in the IRA case is not the willingness to commit suicide, to kill themselves, but the lack of a suicide-terrorist attack where they try to kill others.

If you look at the pattern of violence in the IRA, almost all of the killing is front-loaded to the 1970s and then trails off rather dramatically as you get through the mid-1980s through the 1990s. There is a good reason for that, which is that the British government, starting in the mid-1980s, began to make numerous concessions to the IRA on the basis of its ordinary violence. In fact, there were secret negotiations in the 1980s, which then led to public negotiations, which then led to the Good Friday Accords. If you look at the pattern of the IRA, this is a case where they actually got virtually everything that they wanted through ordinary violence.

The purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die. It is the kill, to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society in order to compel that target society to put pressure on its government to change policy. If the government is already changing policy, then the whole point of suicide terrorism, at least the way it has been used for the last 25 years, doesn’t come up.

TAC: Are you aware of any different strategic decision made by al-Qaeda to change from attacking American troops or ships stationed at or near the Gulf to attacking American civilians in the United States?

RP: I wish I could say yes because that would then make the people reading this a lot more comfortable.

The fact is not only in the case of al-Qaeda, but in suicide-terrorist campaigns in general, we don’t see much evidence that suicide-terrorist groups adhere to a norm of attacking military targets in some circumstances and civilians in others.

In fact, we often see that suicide-terrorist groups routinely attack both civilian and military targets, and often the military targets are off-duty policemen who are unsuspecting. They are not really prepared for battle.

The reasons for the target selection of suicide terrorists appear to be much more based on operational rather than normative criteria. They appear to be looking for the targets where they can maximize the number of casualties.

In the case of the West Bank, for instance, there is a pattern where Hamas and Islamic Jihad use ordinary guerrilla attacks, not suicide attacks, mainly to attack settlers. They use suicide attacks to penetrate into Israel proper. Over 75 percent of all the suicide attacks in the second Intifada were against Israel proper and only 25 percent on the West Bank itself.

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.

July 18, 2005 Issue
So you're telling me that the World Trade Center bombing in 98, the 2 embassy bombings, and the USS Cole bombing weren't commited because of fundamentalism but because of occupation? Interesting...especially considering the fact that the U.S. WAS NOT OCCUPYING ANY NATION. Whats also interesting is that Osama himself declared it a war on western culture and ideals. I think he'd know better than you and the whoever wrote that bs why he's telling people to blow people and buildings up.
 
Last edited:

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Moderator Gavel

Unless you have reprint rights, I need you from now on to post parts of a particular work and then provide a source. For future reference, please do not post entire articles. Thank you, have a nice day.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
Moderator Gavel

Unless you have reprint rights, I need you from now on to post parts of a particular work and then provide a source. For future reference, please do not post entire articles. Thank you, have a nice day.
Why do you say this ?
Are you a control freak like most moderators?
I mean what chance is there of anyone in connection with this website forum being prosecuted for posting an article.
People only get fined when they try & sell someone else's copyrighted material.
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Nowhere in Islam is suicide bombings justified or encouraged......The Koran states (interpetation of meaning):

"O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30)



The problem with "Fundamentalists" is that In pre-Islamic Arabia, retaliation and mass murder was commonplace. If someone was killed, the victim's tribe would retaliate against the murderer's entire tribe. This practice was directly forbidden in the Qur'an (2:178-179). Following this statement of law, the Qur'an says, "After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave chastisement" (2:178). No matter what wrong we perceive as being done against us, we(Muslims) may not lash out against an entire population of people.....but alot of "Fundamentalists" seem to ignore this. Back to topic though I dont know if I believe that Suicide bombings are the actions of the oppressed but I do believe that it is the actions of those who face overwhelming odds with little or no hardware to match it's foes toe to toe....Islam hardly invented the concept Kamikaze pilots were doing it during WW2



peace
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Whats also interesting is that Osama himself declared it a war on western culture and ideals.



Not true...he declared War on what he percieves as the U.S. one sided support for Israel and other Foreign policy issues......I think he could care less if we ate at McDonalds or other "cultural" ideals



peace
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
robin said:
Why do you say this ?
Are you a control freak like most moderators?
I mean what chance is there of anyone in connection with this website forum being prosecuted for posting an article.
People only get fined when they try & sell someone else's copyrighted material.
I'm just doing my job man. I'm sorry if you have a problem with my judgement, but if you could please refer to what the forum rules say about copyright material...

Once again, sorry. If you would like to post parts of an article, do it. But please do not post the entire article and please for future reference provide a link. Thanks again.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Surenderer said:
Not true...he declared War on what he percieves as the U.S. one sided support for Israel and other Foreign policy issues......I think he could care less if we ate at McDonalds or other "cultural" ideals
How true... he declared the biased US military support for Israel & US troops in Suidi as main reasons for 911.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
How true... he declared the biased US military support for Israel & US troops in Suidi as main reasons for 911.
The U.S. isn't "occupying" Saudi Arabia. We were invited to make a base there by the Saudi governemnt..hence it is not an occupation. And again you convieniently leave out attacks made by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
The U.S. isn't "occupying" Saudi Arabia. We were invited to make a base there by the Saudi governemnt..hence it is not an occupation. And again you convieniently leave out attacks made by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.
I didn't use the word 'occupation'.
 

arussian

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
Really learned and convincing article!
Nothing seriously to object.
Perhaps, it could be added that in general self-sacrifice combat practice is more likely to be a respond to losses not to wins.
Remember, for example, that kamikaze emerged only in 1944 when Japan was losing more and more.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
I didn't use the word 'occupation'.
" It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism "..that is the title of the article you posted. You support it therefore you believe that occupation is what causes terrorists to attack.
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
arussian said:
Really learned and convincing article!
Nothing seriously to object.
Perhaps, it could be added that in general self-sacrifice combat practice is more likely to be a respond to losses not to wins.
Remember, for example, that kamikaze emerged only in 1944 when Japan was losing more and more.
I can't get the link to work...
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
So you're telling me that the World Trade Center bombing in 98, the 2 embassy bombings, and the USS Cole bombing weren't commited because of fundamentalism but because of occupation? Interesting...especially considering the fact that the U.S. WAS NOT OCCUPYING ANY NATION. Whats also interesting is that Osama himself declared it a war on western culture and ideals. I think he'd know better than you and the whoever wrote that bs why he's telling people to blow people and buildings up.
USA and Britain armed Jews in the Nation of Palestine after WW2 in accrodance with the Balfour Agreement made between Zionist economists and the British empire in 1916 which stated that if the Zioninsts brought America into the war in the side of Britain, Britain in return would grant them their Holy Land back. Britain didn't "own" or have any claim to that land as it was at that stage occupied by the Ottoman Empire with a Home Rule agreement for the Palestinians.

In 1948 the armed Jews in Israel having secretly been armed by America and Britain drove the larger population of Palestinians out of their Holy Land by force and declared Israel a sovreign Nation. It was as a direct result of Britain and America's involvement in this matter that the countries of the Middle East are not very happy with either of these Nations much less Israel.

A comparable example would be if Spain armed 3 million Mexicans and they invaded and disarmed 6 million Texans in Texas and drove them out of Texas declaring that they were forming a new Nation called The Alamo. Would the rest of the world sit back and say such a thing was okay/ Would the other states of the USA accept it? The answer is of course a resounding "NO!".

That situation in Israel has been compounded by the fact that this invading and occupying force calling itself a Nation (Israel) has taken more land than the Americans and British had allowed them in Palestine (up to twice as much).

Since its creation in 1948 Israel has received funding of 10 billion dollars per year from their Zionistic counter parts in USA putting pressure on the USA's government. This is directly arming and funding the Israeli military and so America directly contributes and by proxy condones the occupation of Israel. Israel since its inception has persecuted the Palestinians with religious prejudice and ethnical marginalisation. They control the entire coastline of the Palestinian land cutting off Palestinian trade through the mediterranean sea and effectively suffocating their economic and trade abilities so that they may never rival or surpass the Zionistic state.

Being directly funded by America and persecuting a race of people whose homes they stole from them has resulted in reprisals. Much like the British occupation of Ireland did, which was funded by Americans. It is only to be expected that other Nations friendly to the Palestinian plight would be sympathetic towards their goals and endeavours.

The Palestinians and other factions fighting against Western occupation do not have organised armies nor the weapons to fight toe to toe with their occupiers. Much like the Irish. They couldn't win a straight fight for their freedom against the British Empire. There was no choice but to use guerilla warfare to fight for their freedom.

The suicide bomber is the ultimate answer to the B-52 bomber. Throughout the last few centuries war has moved away from the horror it used to be. It is not up close and personal when one drops a bomb from 2 miles up and cannot see the flying limbs and half smashed bodies, and especially when one is not left with the scars on their conscience from the memories of seeing such atrocities. The suicide bomber brings back into play the up close and personal horror of war coupled with the undeniable proof of the carrier's belief in the cause for which they are dying. (The liberation of their terrirtories from foreign occupation.)

Israel's insertion and its economic support by America and Britain are the reason for suicide freedom fighters in the world today. I hope I have conclusively proved this argument to you beyond a shadow of a doubt, but if you need any further clarification or any further lessons in history, please just ask ;)
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
USA and Britain armed Jews in the Nation of Palestine after WW2 in accrodance with the Balfour Agreement made between Zionist economists and the British empire in 1916 which stated that if the Zioninsts brought America into the war in the side of Britain, Britain in return would grant them their Holy Land back. Britain didn't "own" or have any claim to that land as it was at that stage occupied by the Ottoman Empire with a Home Rule agreement for the Palestinians.

Ah which is why we were so well armed in 1948, and got so much equipment from the British and the Americans during that war... Ah wait that is a fantasy. The British wanted an Arab victory, the Americans let us buy a total of four transport planes. We had WW1 rifles and close to 600 homemade machine guns. 2 heavy mortars and 100 of the lighter kind. Our armored vehicles were car's with scrap metal welded on, and our ammo was such a disorieant amount since we had to buy underground from the Czechs and the Greeks. We had an army that was worse than Albanias in 1948. We got jack from the Americans or the British, Jew's in America and around the world are what saved us, we gathered millions of dollars from the world's Jew's and after the Truce ended bought better equipment from the Greek's, French, Soviets, and excess equipment from Allied supply dumps. However the Arabs were amred without compunction by the Europeons.

The fact that we are now armed by the Americans stems fromt he fact that we are their most stable Ally in the Middle East. Your view of history is a revisionist tale of warped reality.
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You addressed the first few words of that tiny part of a quote or an overall argument and said my view of history is warped.

Can you please comment on the other aspect quoted such as the Balfour Agreement and the fact that the Jewish civilisation had planned to obtain their Holy Land and gain control of same a long time prior to 1948 which included the signing of an agreement with Britain to bring the USA into the First World War against Germany...
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Balfour Declaration says that the British government favours the idea of a Jewish Home in Palestine. It was a move to get cash support from the Zionist Congress and world Jew's. It was also to exert Zionist pressure on the Americans to lend more support to the Allies.

I don't see what your trying to prove.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Parmenion said:
USA and Britain armed Jews in the Nation of Palestine after WW2 in accrodance with the Balfour Agreement made between Zionist economists and the British empire in 1916 which stated that if the Zioninsts brought America into the war in the side of Britain, Britain in return would grant them their Holy Land back. Britain didn't "own" or have any claim to that land as it was at that stage occupied by the Ottoman Empire with a Home Rule agreement for the Palestinians.

In 1948 the armed Jews in Israel having secretly been armed by America and Britain drove the larger population of Palestinians out of their Holy Land by force and declared Israel a sovreign Nation. It was as a direct result of Britain and America's involvement in this matter that the countries of the Middle East are not very happy with either of these Nations much less Israel.

A comparable example would be if Spain armed 3 million Mexicans and they invaded and disarmed 6 million Texans in Texas and drove them out of Texas declaring that they were forming a new Nation called The Alamo. Would the rest of the world sit back and say such a thing was okay/ Would the other states of the USA accept it? The answer is of course a resounding "NO!".

That situation in Israel has been compounded by the fact that this invading and occupying force calling itself a Nation (Israel) has taken more land than the Americans and British had allowed them in Palestine (up to twice as much).

Since its creation in 1948 Israel has received funding of 10 billion dollars per year from their Zionistic counter parts in USA putting pressure on the USA's government. This is directly arming and funding the Israeli military and so America directly contributes and by proxy condones the occupation of Israel. Israel since its inception has persecuted the Palestinians with religious prejudice and ethnical marginalisation. They control the entire coastline of the Palestinian land cutting off Palestinian trade through the mediterranean sea and effectively suffocating their economic and trade abilities so that they may never rival or surpass the Zionistic state.

Being directly funded by America and persecuting a race of people whose homes they stole from them has resulted in reprisals. Much like the British occupation of Ireland did, which was funded by Americans. It is only to be expected that other Nations friendly to the Palestinian plight would be sympathetic towards their goals and endeavours.

The Palestinians and other factions fighting against Western occupation do not have organised armies nor the weapons to fight toe to toe with their occupiers. Much like the Irish. They couldn't win a straight fight for their freedom against the British Empire. There was no choice but to use guerilla warfare to fight for their freedom.

The suicide bomber is the ultimate answer to the B-52 bomber. Throughout the last few centuries war has moved away from the horror it used to be. It is not up close and personal when one drops a bomb from 2 miles up and cannot see the flying limbs and half smashed bodies, and especially when one is not left with the scars on their conscience from the memories of seeing such atrocities. The suicide bomber brings back into play the up close and personal horror of war coupled with the undeniable proof of the carrier's belief in the cause for which they are dying. (The liberation of their terrirtories from foreign occupation.)

Israel's insertion and its economic support by America and Britain are the reason for suicide freedom fighters in the world today. I hope I have conclusively proved this argument to you beyond a shadow of a doubt, but if you need any further clarification or any further lessons in history, please just ask ;)
None from you. You obvioulsy have an extremely distorted view of history. And you failed to prove anything of what I have previously said false.
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
None from you. You obvioulsy have an extremely distorted view of history. And you failed to prove anything of what I have previously said false.
Please explain how my view is distorted in your opinion...
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Parmenion said:
Please explain how my view is distorted in your opinion...
1. America did not join WW2 because the jews asked us too. We joined WW2 because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor hence why a declaration of war was not made until after that attack.

2. It was Britain that installed the jewish refugees in that area not America. The jews needed a place to go so Britain chose that area because they were in control of it at the time.

3. It was Britain that disarmed Palestine and armed Israel.

4. America never once supported or approved Israel's invasion of Palestine hence why the U.S. has been in peace talks with both to establish where their borders lie.

5. America did not give money to Israel knowing that it would be used to invade Palestine.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
rows and rows of manila folders
Rows and rows of folders in my, teachers, huge brain, but that is besides the point.

How about yet another direct question not to be answered?

The first, way back now robin, first WTC bombing.

Who were we occupying then? Hmm?

I'll wait......forever!
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
1. America did not join WW2 because the jews asked us too. We joined WW2 because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor hence why a declaration of war was not made until after that attack.

2. It was Britain that installed the jewish refugees in that area not America. The jews needed a place to go so Britain chose that area because they were in control of it at the time.

3. It was Britain that disarmed Palestine and armed Israel.

4. America never once supported or approved Israel's invasion of Palestine hence why the U.S. has been in peace talks with both to establish where their borders lie.

5. America did not give money to Israel knowing that it would be used to invade Palestine.

1. Please quote where I stated that America join in WW2 because the jews asked you to.

2. Please quote where I stated that America installed jewish refugees in the area.

3. Conceded.

4. Please give me one link to a recognised American newspaper entry or Media story (other than Common Sense) condemning the Israeli invasion of Palestine.

5. I know. But the fact that America has aided Israel with 10 billion a year is directly financing the Israelis to with that money as they wish. America did not stop these donations after Israel invaded Palestine and so it can easily be argued that the invasion is supported considering the money is still flowing and its quite obvious the Israelis are continually arming up.

A curious question though. Can anyone advise me why (in their opinion) it was okay for Israel or Pakistan to develop Nuclear bombs, but its not okay for Iran or North Korea.
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Parmenion said:
America did not stop these donations after Israel invaded Palestine
I, may be teacher, of the huge brain, but, please to inform me, when did Israel invade Palestine? Seems to me they never invaded anyone, just defended, then took a little land for their troubles. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Parmenion

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
137
Reaction score
7
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UN General Assembly Resolution 194, calls for refugees wishing to live in peace with their neighbors to be allowed to return to their homes, or to receive compensation if they don't wish to return.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, calls for Israel to withdraw from territories occupied during the Six-Day War, the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from confiscating occupied land and transferring its own population to that territory.

UN Security Council Resolution 446, declares that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal.

Would you be so kind as to address the rest of my post also as opposed to part of it?
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
So you're telling me that the World Trade Center bombing in 98, the 2 embassy bombings, and the USS Cole bombing weren't commited because of fundamentalism but because of occupation? Interesting...especially considering the fact that the U.S. WAS NOT OCCUPYING ANY NATION. Whats also interesting is that Osama himself declared it a war on western culture and ideals. I think he'd know better than you and the whoever wrote that bs why he's telling people to blow people and buildings up.

And yes IT WAS OCCUPYING ANOTHER NATION.
They are UPSET that we MOVED INTO THEIR HOLLY LAND IN SAUDI ARABIA.
CUT AND DRY.

YOU DONT KNOW BULLSHIT.

GET SOME EDUCATION ON SOMETHING IF YOUR GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT.

PERHAPS THEY ARE NOT AS BAD AS YOU THOUGHT THEY WHERE.

GRANTED THEY ARE STILL BAD MAYBEE THEY ARE JUST NOT AS BAD.
 
Top Bottom