View Full Version : Never negotiate with terrorists?
wasteofo2
Jul12-04, 11:53 PM
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?
Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.
It's a tough question, no simple answer. It would be hasty to say that no negotiation is necessarily the one best answer, but it has it's pros and cons, and at some point you have to decide on a strategy. In reality, you probably have to just try out strategies and do what works best. Now, negotiating sets a bad precedence. After all, what if the person says, "I want $100 more." Or what if one person asks for 100, gets it, and the next asks for 200, the next terrorist asks for 500, 1000, 1 million, etc. Also, someone might want to look at the pros and cons of terrorism, i.e. the pros are that you might get the ransom, the cons are that you might get killed/caught. A no-negotation policy eliminates any chance that the terrorist will have any pros in choosing terrorism.
However, a terrorist might want to call your bluff. He might say that I have a man hostage, I just want $100. He thinks that you won't really stick to your ideals. Would you be better off having sent the message to terrorists that you won't negotiate with terrorists, and will have lost, say 10 lives, or are you better off with 10 lives, having lost $100 and lost credibility when you say that there are no pros for terrorists? It's hard to just say that the human lives are worth maintaining credibility, but in the long run, credibility might be what saves more humans. Again, on the other hand, despite this policy there is still terrorism. What if every idiot tries to call your bluff? Then, in the name of maintaining credibility, you will just keep losing lives (because some terrorists will not think you're credible no matter what).
So basically:
no-negotiation: maintains credibility which may save later lives, but only works if future terrorists really take your credibility into account.
negotiation: saves lives, this is a key bonus, but loses plenty of money and of course maybe even some lives, allows terrorists to disrupt life and gives them no reason to avoid terrorism.
If terrorists are expected to be reasonable enough (and take credibility into account), then we shouldn't negotiate, if they are not reasonable at all, then we may as well negotiate if the losses are less than the gains. Determining how reasonable terrorists will be is very tough, very subjective, and very complicated, and this is why there is really no clear-cut answer as to what the best approach is.
Entropy
Jul13-04, 12:25 AM
If you say your not going to negotiate with terrorist its obvious that you're refering to tough situations like the one you stated so you should stick by your word. Besides not negotiating will show terrorists not to kidnap your citizens because they won't get what they want. Saving more lives in the long run.
Actually the USA government has a history of dealing with those they label terrorists.
loseyourname
Jul13-04, 02:29 AM
They don't negotiate with those directly threatening the US or its property or citizens through the use of terror.
studentx
Jul13-04, 03:47 AM
officially they dont
They don't negotiate with those directly threatening the US or its property or citizens through the use of terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
JohnDubYa
Jul13-04, 04:56 AM
If you give them $100, then they know you can be rolled.
It's like Winston Churchill who wanted to know if a certain woman would sleep with him for a million dollars. When the woman said yes, Winston said that he now knew what she was, all he had to do was figure out the price.
Sorry if I butchered the original story. But I find it directly applicable to the situation.
RE: "no-negotiation: maintains credibility which may save later lives, but only works if future terrorists really take your credibility into account."
You assume a level of reason in terrorists that doesn't exist. They're not looking for credibility in the U.S.'s stance, only weakness. You show them a weakness, and they will try everything to exploit it.
phatmonky
Jul13-04, 08:31 AM
We don't negotiate, not even for 100 bucks.
That doesn't meant hat private agents, speaking on behalf of the government, don't go in and try to broker a deal.
However, as we have seen, negotiating at any public or large payoff is out of the question - as it should be.
I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
You assume a level of reason in terrorists that doesn't exist. They're not looking for credibility in the U.S.'s stance, only weakness. You show them a weakness, and they will try everything to exploit it.
A terrorist with nothing to lose will not care if you show weakness, he will try to make a weakness. You have innocent lives to lose, certain terrorists have nothing to lose, so a no-negotation policy won't help in this case.
Actually the USA government has a history of dealing with those they label terrorists.
hehehe... good point, retrospectively...
i guess it's all about putting a price on human life... say we were to put a decent price of about 2000$ on a mans head and maybe 2200-2500$ for a woman or a child (remember, it's all about public oppinion)..
how about half a barrel of oil? there seems to be a market for life in exchange for oil and wealth these days...
i think you should check with halliburton to see what the price is up to now...
JohnDubYa
Jul13-04, 07:05 PM
RE: "A terrorist with nothing to lose will not care if you show weakness, he will try to make a weakness."
In terms of giving in to demands, terrorists cannot make that weakness. Only by caving in to demands can the weakness appear.
RE: "You have innocent lives to lose, certain terrorists have nothing to lose, so a no-negotation policy won't help in this case."
But terrrorists operate because they think we can be rolled. And by giving in to demands (no matter how small), we will prove them right.
RE: "I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair"
Irrelevant, since the Contras did not attack the US and were not using terror to extort the US. (And I am not sure it would be correct to call the Contras actual terrorists without applying the same label to every Rebel group in the world. Insurgency is a nasty business.)
JohnDubYa
Jul13-04, 07:07 PM
RE: "i guess it's all about putting a price on human life... say we were to put a decent price of about 2000$ on a mans head and maybe 2200-2500$ for a woman or a child (remember, it's all about public oppinion).. how about half a barrel of oil? there seems to be a market for life in exchange for oil and wealth these days..."
Why do I get the impression that we could talk about water skiing and you would somehow, some way, insert the oil conspiracy argument?
RE: "i guess it's all about putting a price on human life... say we were to put a decent price of about 2000$ on a mans head and maybe 2200-2500$ for a woman or a child (remember, it's all about public oppinion).. how about half a barrel of oil? there seems to be a market for life in exchange for oil and wealth these days..."
Why do I get the impression that we could talk about water skiing and you would somehow, some way, insert the oil conspiracy argument?
i have absolutely no doubt, that the war on iraq wasn't for oil related gains, so shut up smartass...
selfAdjoint
Jul13-04, 08:12 PM
i have absolutely no doubt, that the war on iraq wasn't for oil related gains, so shut up smartass...
Why should he shut up because of your mere state of belief? Who elected you?
wasteofo2
Jul13-04, 10:43 PM
Why should he shut up because of your mere state of belief? Who elected you?
I vote that balkan should have position of Official Minister of Truth. After all, he has no doubt, that's more than good enough for me, since I have some doubts. He seems like a strong, decisive leader.
Entropy
Jul13-04, 10:54 PM
i have absolutely no doubt, that the war on iraq wasn't for oil related gains, so shut up smartass...
Are you insane? Of coarse it was for oil! Atleast Bush Senior had the fortitude to come out straight with the American people and tell the truth when he first wanted to invade Iraq. Saying we should attack Iraq for the oil, of coarse the American people didn't buy it. So then he changed his story and said: "oh lets go in for democracy!" And the American people bought it. So now Junior is just saving some time and lying to us straight up.
America could careless about the freedom of some colored third world country. If we did care then why did we just invade Iraq only? There are several other countries the US could have attacked that where just as oppressed as Iraq and a far bigger threat to the US, except they didn't contain oil reserves!
JohnDubYa
Jul14-04, 12:51 AM
RE: "Atleast Bush Senior had the fortitude to come out straight with the American people and tell the truth when he first wanted to invade Iraq. Saying we should attack Iraq for the oil, of coarse the American people didn't buy it. So then he changed his story and said: "oh lets go in for democracy!"
Refresh my memory: When did Bush Sr. ever say anything about democracy?
RE: "America could careless about the freedom of some colored third world country. If we did care then why did we just invade Iraq only?"
We helped attack Serbia in order to support Muslims that were being oppressed. How much oil does Serbia have? What exactly did we gain out of that ordeal?
I fail to see how the Iraqi invasion was all about oil. Our oil prices are higher now than they were before the invasion. Exactly how much oil did we get out of this deal? And where is it?
RE: "There are several other countries the US could have attacked that where just as oppressed as Iraq and a far bigger threat to the US, except they didn't contain oil reserves!"
I don't know of any country that is/was as oppressed as Iraq. Saddam Hussein was brutal beyond belief. But if you want to offer an example we can argue the point.
Why do I get the impression that we could talk about water skiing and you would somehow, some way, insert the oil conspiracy argument?
Well DUH! The government wants you to go water skiing because when you drive the boat thats takes gas and the government wants you to spend all your money on gas!! :rofl:
RE: "I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair"
Irrelevant, since the Contras did not attack the US and were not using terror to extort the US. (And I am not sure it would be correct to call the Contras actual terrorists without applying the same label to every Rebel group in the world. Insurgency is a nasty business.)
Ah, so now the mighty "The USA NEVER deals with terrorists!" has become "Well, except for THOSE ones, and maybe a few others..."
JohnDubYa
Jul14-04, 03:52 AM
RE: "Ah, so now the mighty "The USA NEVER deals with terrorists!" has become "Well, except for THOSE ones, and maybe a few others..."
That was never the issue. Here, we are considering whether or not it is wise to give in to terrorist demands when they have placed something you value in jeopardy. I fail to see any connection between this situation and the Iran-Contra affair.
Now, if the Contras had taken American hostages and demanded weapons in exchange, then the situation would be relevant to this discussion.
Besides, no one has shown yet that Contras were terrorists, or that we knew they were terrorists at the time of the Iran-Contra deal.
Yay. Semantics.
In short, when gunmonkeys kill innocent people, you are dividing them into: those who the USA has labelled terrorists, and those who the USA hasn't labelled terrorists. Conventiently, the ones the USA deals with are not labelled terrorists. Whether they do the same thing is irrelevent. In fact, it's just fine if those the USA deals with (such as Idi Amin) kill as many people as they like, so long as the USA is the one dealing with them. That makes them good guys.
Why should he shut up because of your mere state of belief? Who elected you?
lemme see? because he immidiately generalized me when i mentioned the word "oil"? i merely revealed that his generalization was untrue and quite offensive... read his post, then read my response and then quitcher' whining.
I vote that balkan should have position of Official Minister of Truth. After all, he has no doubt, that's more than good enough for me, since I have some doubts. He seems like a strong, decisive leader.
i respect that doubt you have, i'm quite sure you have good reasons, but see my response above and quitcher' whining... :wink:
now, to elaborate: i don't think the amount of money the administration could get on the oil from iraq (most of the oil is reserved for the country itself, actually... usa just gets very good deals...) reflects the insane cost of the war itself... the american people will pay for the war of course, but that's another matter...
what i do believe, know actually, is, that since the war, shrubs buddies (some of them are even in office right by his side, go figure... ;) ) have gotten million $ industrial deals in iraq... huge, lucrative buisness deals...
so i don't believe it's about oil in particular, but i highly suspect that money is involved...
satisfied? :smile:
RE: "Ah, so now the mighty "The USA NEVER deals with terrorists!" has become "Well, except for THOSE ones, and maybe a few others..."
That was never the issue. Here, we are considering whether or not it is wise to give in to terrorist demands when they have placed something you value in jeopardy. I fail to see any connection between this situation and the Iran-Contra affair.
Now, if the Contras had taken American hostages and demanded weapons in exchange, then the situation would be relevant to this discussion.
Besides, no one has shown yet that Contras were terrorists, or that we knew they were terrorists at the time of the Iran-Contra deal.
Terrorists in Lebanaon, funded by Iranians, kidnapped Americans. Iranian agents, acting as if they were independent negotiators brokered a deal. America would sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages.
That the US used the proceeds of the illegal sale to illegally fund the contras is not the point. The point is the US sold weapons to the sponsors of terrorists.
Njorl
russ_watters
Jul14-04, 09:07 AM
Back to the topic at hand (Adam has led you guys waaay OT. Don't follow him.)...I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?
Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical. Actually, its a pretty simple question and it has a simple answer: No - even if we do find a "reasonble terrorist" (if that's not a contradiction in terms, I don't know what is), we should not negotiate with them. In fact, the more reasonable, the less you should negotiate with them - negotiation encourages future acts of terrorism by making it succeessful/profitable.
Two examples:
In the 1970s and 80s, there were a lot of airplane hijackings, mostly in Israel. It was the tactic of choice. But it has stopped. Why? The Israelis virtually never negotiated and the terrorists pretty much always ended up dead, without any of their demands being met (generally, the demand was 'release my buddy from prison'). The terrorists learned that it was a bad idea and largely stopped.
Kidnapping for ransom in the US: It used to be pretty big. When was the last time you heard of one? The reason, is the FBI is relentless in the pursuit of kidnappers and they almost never succeeded. Message sent/received.
Robert Zaleski
Jul14-04, 09:24 AM
Reasonable men are not terrorist. Negotiating with a terrorist organization increases their status and provides them with an excellent sounding board for recruiting new members. Negotiating with terrorist makes a sovereign nation look submissive and emasculated.
Actually, Israel negotiates with terrorists on a regular basis. They frequently exchange prisoners for their soldiers, or even the remains of their soldiers.
Policy is useful as a deterrent, but it should not be a straightjacket. Pay the $100 if you think it will really get the hostage back. Then, make sure it costs the terrorist organization a lot more than $100. Every recovered hostage is a source of intelligence. If terrorists want to shoot themselves in the foot, we should not let our policy stop them. Yes, giving in to terrorist demands encourages more terrorism, but when exploiting terrorist's stupidity outweighs that damage, it should be done. When the dumbass who demanded $100 gets tracked down and captured, he will not inspire more terrorism.
Njorl
JohnDubYa
Jul14-04, 12:44 PM
RE: "That the US used the proceeds of the illegal sale to illegally fund the contras is not the point. The point is the US sold weapons to the sponsors of terrorists."
Sorry if I misunderstood the point.
But wasn't Reagan roundly criticized for allowing this deal to take place? Wasn't that because the US was perceived as having violated its policy of not negotiating with terrorists?
I will give another example to russ' point: The terrorist activity we had in this country during the late 60s/early 70s. Groups like the SLA never got what they wanted, and the public never supported them. So these groups pretty much vanished.
Dagenais
Jul14-04, 12:44 PM
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?
Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.
What if they gave the terrorist $100, and they still killed the hostage? Then what happens next? :confused:
Back to the topic at hand (Adam has led you guys waaay OT. Don't follow him.)...
Actually I have been 100% ON topic. The topic is whether the USA negotiates with terrorists. They do. Simple. I'll provide a list later if people want it.
loseyourname
Jul14-04, 06:35 PM
Wrong Adam.
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?
Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.
He didn't ask whether or not the US negotiates with terrorists. He asked whether or not, in this hypothetical situation, the US should negotiate with these terrorists.
And integral to the opening post is the part "I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" which is false. The answer to the question must be based on history, on real world knowledge, not on patriotic mumbo-jumbo. The real world shows us that yes, the USA will negotiate with terrorists.
loseyourname
Jul14-04, 06:47 PM
That isn't false. The US does have that policy. Whether or not all US leaders have adhered to the policy is another matter for another thread. You still haven't answered his question.
1) The policy is false.
2) Yes, I have. History shows that the answer is "yes".
JohnDubYa
Jul14-04, 08:27 PM
Adam, using your logic no policy could ever be violated, because as soon as the policy is violated it could be said to never exist.
"We have a policy of no smoking in the men's room."
"You have no such policy."
"Why do you say that?"
"I'm smoking in the men's room right now. So no such policy exists."
Please let me know who provided Saddam with the best weapons in Iran-Iraq war ?
JohnDubYa
Jul14-04, 09:40 PM
Saddam wasn't known as a terrorist at the time. And he was fighting the people we considered at the time to be the real terrorists. The lesser of two evils, or so it appeared at the time.
Besides, we had no interest in either an Iran or Iraq victory. We supported Iraq just enough to keep the Iranians from winning.
But the answer to your question is "mostly the French and Russians." I am not aware of any US made tanks or aircraft used in the war, although I have not studied it.
Adam, using your logic no policy could ever be violated, because as soon as the policy is violated it could be said to never exist.
"We have a policy of no smoking in the men's room."
"You have no such policy."
"Why do you say that?"
"I'm smoking in the men's room right now. So no such policy exists."
Are you incapable of reading? I clearly said that the policy exists. I also said that it is false, since the government with that policy does not abide by it.
studentx
Jul15-04, 05:39 AM
So the policy exists but is false... right... Lets just keep it at the policy exists and get back on topic.
jimmy p
Jul15-04, 05:49 AM
Saddam wasn't known as a terrorist at the time.
Not to the Americans anyway. I'm sure the Iranians could have said a few things about him. A terrorist should be a terrorist to every nation.
Please let me know who provided Saddam with the best weapons in Iran-Iraq war ?
His tanks were Russian and his jets were French.
Njorl
phatmonky
Jul15-04, 10:02 AM
Not to the Americans anyway.
Ummm, nor the English either sir.
loseyourname
Jul15-04, 12:13 PM
2) Yes, I have. History shows that the answer is "yes".
The question isn't would the US violate the policy. The question is should the US violate its policy in the hypothetical situation introduced? Do you even have an opinion on the matter? If not, what the hell are you doing in this thread? Aren't there enough threads for you to spread your hatred of the US?
JohnDubYa
Jul15-04, 03:25 PM
Adam, if you are going to be blunt, choose your words carefully. A statement like "the policy is false" makes little sense.
Thanks, loseyourname. Expressed my sentiments exactly.
loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem. My opinion has been stated. And no, I do not hate America.
JohnDubYa: I always choose my words carefully. I said precisely what I meant.
JohnDubYa
Jul15-04, 07:22 PM
I always choose my words carefully. I said precisely what I meant.
Then the problem resides in your unclear thinking.
Sorry, but the statment "The policy is false" makes no more sense than "The policy is true." What the Hell is a false policy? A true policy?
loseyourname
Jul15-04, 08:53 PM
loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem. My opinion has been stated. And no, I do not hate America.
You must have a problem with being a little a-hole with nothing constructive to say. I re-read every post you made to this thread. You continually say that the US does and will negotiate with terrorists. The question is should they in the situation presented, something you have yet to address. Instead you've turned the thread into yet another fight between you and everyone who doesn't hate the US. As if there aren't enough of those already.
russ_watters
Jul15-04, 11:58 PM
Actually I have been 100% ON topic. The topic is whether the USA negotiates with terrorists. They do. Simple. No, Adam, rerad the first post. The question was should we, not do we. Besides - most of us will stipulate that at some times we have. It just isn't relevant to the question of whether or not we should.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I couldn't this thread back for you, wasteofo2 - did you read my response? What if they gave the terrorist $100, and they still killed the hostage? Then what happens next? An issue I didn't address and another good reason why you shouldn't negotiate with hostage takers. Whether the hostage-takers get what they want or not, a hostage is a witness whose existence is dangerous to the hostage-taker. There isn't much incentive to let the hostage live. The next hostage-taker, seeing this, will follow suit.
Now, you may try to bluff the hostage-taker. That's fine. But you shouldn't ever actually give in to their demands.
Then the problem resides in your unclear thinking.
Sorry, but the statment "The policy is false" makes no more sense than "The policy is true." What the Hell is a false policy? A true policy?
A policy espoused by a state, which is not adhered to by that state. It's really quite clear.
You must have a problem with being a little a-hole with nothing constructive to say. I re-read every post you made to this thread. You continually say that the US does and will negotiate with terrorists. The question is should they in the situation presented, something you have yet to address. Instead you've turned the thread into yet another fight between you and everyone who doesn't hate the US. As if there aren't enough of those already.
1) Please refrain from such ad hominem attacks in future, they say more about your own character than about anything else.
2) Let me quote the opening post of this thread: "I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all?" The answer is yes. We must base our answer to "What might happen?" on what has happened, not on what patriotic mumbo-jumbo might make us wish would happen.
3) Once again, I don't hate the USA. Continually repeating such a nonsense remark (that I do hate it) will not make it true. All it will accomplish is reveal your reactionary state of mind.
russ_watters
Jul16-04, 07:59 AM
"What might happen?" You put that in quotes, yet I don't see it in that opening post....
Russ, go slap your parents for me.
loseyourname
Jul16-04, 07:11 PM
Russ, go slap your parents for me.
loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem.
1) Please refrain from such ad hominem attacks in future, they say more about your own character than about anything else.
And even still, you haven't answered the actual question: What should happen?
And another question, yet again: Where is the moderator for this forum?
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?
Yes the government would be hated by the public but every little sum of money given to a terrorist can go to future terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and weapons. Or, a terrorist group could just continuously kidnap and threaten the lives of soldier after soldier, and continue asking for, as you said "$100" each time. After a while that money would pile up and, the US would be unable to do anything about it. The public would be pretty... "pissed off" if they didnt pay the hundred dollars but the money would continue to pile up and the terrorists have many troops and civilians to kidnap over there... so there is no clear answer, just what one believes is right.
Is the loss of an innocent person due to the lack of 'negotiating with terrorists' worth it? No but although it is terrible, perhaps it is worth potentially saving the lives of millions at home... in the end negotiating with terrorists is risky no matter how you look at it and the consequences of negotiating, or NOT negotiating are both sad and painful, and neither option is good. I wonder if there will be found a third option: not negotiation and not leaving an innocent person in the hands of terrorists because of refusing to negotiate.
studentx
Jul17-04, 04:52 AM
they could equip westerners with explosive belts in the middle east, in case they get kidnapped
devil-fire
Jul24-04, 10:10 AM
the usa would more then likly get a third party to do the negotiating. any country would do as long as they dont have the same policy. the usa could recover any financial loses by doing some kind of favor or service
if acountry could not offical negotiate it basicly means they cant directly use tax payer money. more so in a situation like this, i mean the soldiers at the barracks would collect up some change and pay a taxie driver to go pick their friend up. it would just have to be done durring their off hours
Dagenais
Jul25-04, 12:40 AM
Russ, go slap your parents for me.
He said that to me once. :rofl:
they could equip westerners with explosive belts in the middle east, in case they get kidnapped
A more realistic scenario is that more Westerners will be armed in the middle east due to these kidnappings.
And if the terrorists kidnapped one of them - well, they'd be sorry.
studentx
Jul25-04, 03:52 AM
what about cyanide capsules. Everythings better than beheading
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.