The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

  • News
  • Thread starter antd
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation is about the speaker's belief that all human killing is wrong, but they can understand killing in defense or other situations. They question whether those who join the military are doing so to kill others and argue that soldiers should not be praised for killing. They also bring up the idea of blame and whether soldiers are "good people" or not. The other person in the conversation defends the soldiers, saying that not all of them join to kill and that they are just following orders. They also mention their pride in their family members who are in the military and believe that the responsibility for war lies with those who start it.
  • #71
wajed said:
how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

they "threatened" oil supplies :tongue:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
wajed said:
how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

This comment is woefully ignorant of history. No one ever claimed the Iraqis attacked us. Your entire premise is wrong.
 
  • #73
Wajed, do you understand the concept of pre-emptive action?
 
  • #74
Gokul43201 said:
Where did the OP indicate that he would rather condone killing than be writing in German, laboring as a slave or being used to make lampshades? Aren't you just making assumptions about a person you don't know?
No. Using overly simplistic platitudes like "killing is wrong" ignores the realities of history that sometimes make it necessary. Vanadium's point - and he said it explicitly - isn't that the OP condones this thinking, but that s/he didn't think it through. It's what I argued as well: if the OP put a little more effort into thinking about this issue, s/he would probably see the nonsensical logical result of the starting premise.
 
  • #75
Astronuc said:
What wrong information? The Taliban (under direction of Mullah Omar) ...
lol, sorry sorry sorry, I read "intentionally" as "internationally", and that`s why I said "not an international force"
Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

And certainly al-Qaida has decided to strike/attack US and western interests throughout the world: attack on USN Cole in Yemen, the attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on WTC in NYCity (Sept 11, 2001), . . . .
Yeah, I thought you said "international", and Taliban, unlike AlQaida, doesn`t do international operations.



I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply reporting according to my understanding.

I don't agree with US or western methods concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, but then I'm not in a position of make or influence the decisions. In numerous cases, US (and probably UK/Nato) air forces have bombed or strafed innocent civilians because of faulty information, or simply due to reckless conduct.
Just to be sure something is clear: it not like "cases".. they happen more usually than to be called "cases".

just giving more examples of how its like there:
A) we heard of some torturing happened in a prison once or twice..
how could the press agencies get some type of information? the information and pictures were leaked out of the prison..
press can`t show us what really happens there..
So, conclusion: If this is only what we heard of and what could be leaked, then how about the things that no one in this whole Earth can hear of or see but the ones in the prisons? there surely happens alot..

B) some american soldiers video-ing their friends (you know.. why not have some fun) - forget what the video is all about, the important is the clips in the video, here it is (please, anyone young enough, don`t open these):

C) (again, why not have some fun.. let's crash some cars):

Again, not that this is all what happens, I`ve just searched for some videos that I remember, and just trying to show you.
And again, I`m only trying to make something clear, not that I`m opposing you concerning what you said.



Kai Eide, chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has called for 'an urgent review' of US operations in Afghanistan. That certainly comes late - well after the US airstrike in Azizabad last August in which 90+ civilians (mostly women and children) were killed by US bombs, and just after the airstrike in the village of Granai in Bala Buluk District of Farah province this past May.
You know, I don`t even trust Kai, I simply can`t, he is just doing attacks there; they invaded Iraq, planning to invade Iran; Israel is handling issues in Lebanon, Palestine; US has control on Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt; so, all of these guys working together, I`d never trust anything they`d say. The first possibility to come in my mind is: press could have captured some pictures and collected enough information on this speicific occurance, so admitting that it happened would make it look like its that rare big mistake that happened; Second possibility to come in my mind is: to make things look more realistic they have to show some errors. Still, All of this doesn`t mean denying that he simply may have felt of how much disastrous the thing that happened and so he got out to announce what happened.


I don't trust those sources cited. I prefer to get my information for Afghan and Pakistani journalists, and westerners who have lived or worked in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.
However, we know in some cases, a limited number of US and UK troops have intentionally brutalized and killed innocent people.
Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?
Sorry, whom do you mean of "we"?





The only way to be sure about events in any part of the world is to witness those events and places in person. Yes it is dangerous.
:) sure sometimes we need to sacrifice; just like the American good soldiers that all they can realise is that they are helping in bringing safety to the world in general and their country in particular.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
they "threatened" oil supplies
This comment is woefully ignorant of history. No one ever claimed the Iraqis attacked us. Your entire premise is wrong.
I have been wrong to use the word "attack"
but can you justify using the word "threatened" when talking about invading a country and be the reason to kill hundreds of thousands and make the other millions lifes` disastrous? (and consuming big amount of your country`s money etc..)

Anyway, they took enough oil from Iraq that if anybody threatened your oil supplies again you wouldn`t really be that mad at him, you will already be having Iraq`s oil supplies in your country!
 
  • #77
Was it the smilley or the quotation marks that made you take my post seriously?

Also, aside from the video in the first link above, everything is fake, the sounds and soldier voices are dubbed. It is made my someone with a presumably muslim name (shown at end) and so would appear to be a propper ganda film at the very least. A bad thing to post given you are defending them.
 
  • #78
jarednjames said:
Was it the smilley or the quotation marks that made you take my post seriously?
At first I coudln`t determine wether you were kidding or not, but Cyrus also commented, so I thought its a mistake I really did.

I`m totally sorry

Also, aside from the video in the first link above, everything is fake, the sounds and soldier voices are dubbed. It is made my someone with a presumably muslim name (shown at end) and so would appear to be a propper ganda film at the very least. A bad thing to post given you are defending them.
that sound is not part of the video (for sure!), its someone added the voice trying to make the video more exciting!
Specially, if you see that women teaching kids stuff like that, u may be able to understand that some people may find this exciting, interesting.. or however they feel.
 
  • #79
wajed said:
At first I coudln`t determine wether you were kidding or not, but Cyrus also commented, so I thought its a mistake I really did.
I`m totally sorry
No worries, by my count that's 1-1 now.

wajed said:
that sound is not part of the video (for sure!), its someone added the voice trying to make the video more exciting!
Specially, if you see that women teaching kids stuff like that, u may be able to understand that some people may find this exciting, interesting.. or however they feel.
That's my problem with things like this. You get people doing this sort of thing (adding sound etc.) and before you know it everyone believes it as true. It's why there are so many misconceptions.
Although granted, in this case the video says it all, the sound was unnecassary
 
  • #80
jarednjames said:
Wajed, do you understand the concept of pre-emptive action?

"pre-emptive"

Now I do, I`ve just looked it up.
 
  • #81
wajed said:
"pre-emptive"

Now I do, I`ve just looked it up.

Its just that in certain circumstances it is required.
 
  • #82
"the sound was unnecassary"
By the way; the sound isn`t added by the one who produced the whole video, that is clear, because he needn`t to, and adding such "topping" on the video wouldn`t add ".0001%" of the reality that guy is trying to show.

That was said just in case you think its him :P (I wouldn`t like it to be 1-2 :P)
 
  • #83
think it may just be 1-2.

but just to clarify, does it say he didn't add it?

regardless, the sound does add to the video if you don't realize it's fake.
 
  • #84
Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

Please get to a valid point quickly. So far, you have yet to make one post of quality and/or substance. You really ought to just stop these types of posts because they are getting to be highly annoying and immature.
 
  • #85
Its just that in certain circumstances it is required.

I hope that is not how war on Iraq started.

what does justify such a "pre-emptive action"? (I`m asking for facts)
 
  • #86
If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

The current North Korea issue, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted in a pre-emptive strike, however they stopped at pre-emptive action (a blockade of cuba).
 
  • #87
Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

Please get to a valid point quickly. So far, you have yet to make one post of quality and/or substance. You really ought to just stop these types of posts because they are getting to be highly annoying and immature.

[senario]
A)Is killing ok?
B)when its needed.
A)Did you need it when you invaded Iraq?
B)Yes.
A)Prove.
[/senario]

Concerning media, its what we can base our talk on, you don`t work in the congress, do you? all you know is from the media, so is it the same with me, and probably everyone here. Anyway, if you just don`t want such talk in this thread, I`d stop talking about it, or you can just neglect what I say about media.


concerning the videos being taken out of context, please I need time to watch them and reply, youtube buffers really slow and then it even stops buffering..so please give me time.

If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

The current North Korea issue, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted in a pre-emptive strike, however they stopped at pre-emptive action (a blockade of cuba).

Please let's be straight forward.. do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA?
 
  • #88
wajed said:
[senario]
A)Is killing ok?
B)when its needed.
A)Did you need it when you invaded Iraq?
B)Yes.
A)Prove.
[/senario]

I will give you Donald Rumsfeld's reply to this: "I don't do hypothetical what if's" because arguing speculation serves no point.

Concerning media, its what we can base our talk on, you don`t work in the congress, do you? all you know is from the media, so is it the same with me, and probably everyone here. Anyway, if you just don`t want such talk in this thread, I`d stop talking about it, or you can just neglect what I say about media.

Except I don't watch and post Youtube clips from a guy named AlSaeed (whoever that is) who spliced together stuff from other places and out of context and threw in some background music. I get my information from listening to Congressional hearings and/or government officials: not rehashed information from media outlets, do you?

concerning the videos being taken out of context, please I need time to watch them and reply, youtube buffers really slow and then it even stops buffering..so please give me time.

How about next time you not post Youtube videos made by some kid in Egypt and post something of actual credible value.
 
  • #89
russ_watters said:
No. Using overly simplistic platitudes like "killing is wrong" ignores the realities of history that sometimes make it necessary. Vanadium's point - and he said it explicitly - isn't that the OP condones this thinking, but that s/he didn't think it through. It's what I argued as well: if the OP put a little more effort into thinking about this issue, s/he would probably see the nonsensical logical result of the starting premise.
No. The logical result would be, in this case, that the OP would prefer speaking German, laboring as a slave or being turned in lampshades than going to war with the Germans. There is no logical inconsistency.
 
  • #90
wajed said:
[senario]
do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA?

certainly not, i gave you a scenario and then two examples.

the usa took pre-emptive ACTION with the cuban missile crisis averting the need for a pre-emptive STRIKE.

north korea has just threatened the world (or UN), 'interfere with our ships and we will attack'.
so this would be a situation where a STRIKE would be considered if it is proven they are doing something dodgy with their nuclear weapons or the threat from them becomes serious. they are already ignoring the UN telling them to stop using/developing them.

although told "iraq has weapons of mass destruction" they never materialised. the official story is it was about the WMD but in reality there were many other factors. Yes, that was a pre-emptive strike, but not a properly/adequately justified one. and so doesn't fit my example.
 
  • #91
Cyrus said:
I will give you Donald Rumsfeld's reply to this: "I don't do hypothetical what if's" because arguing speculation serves no point.
I like this one. Shall use it more often.

Cyrus said:
Except I don't watch and post Youtube clips from a guy named AlSaeed (whoever that is) who spliced together stuff from other places and out of context and threw in some background music. I get my information from listening to Congressional hearings and/or government officials: not rehashed information from media outlets, do you? How about next time you not post Youtube videos made by some kid in Egypt and post something of actual credible value.
Wajed you spend most of your time here having a go at media outlets in the western world for being false and giving wrong information, then you go an post a video like this. Where it has blatantly been edited and spliced in such a way that it is extremely biased. You have lost credibility there my friend.

Gokul43201 said:
No. The logical result would be, in this case, that the OP would prefer speaking German, laboring as a slave or being turned in lampshades than going to war with the Germans. There is no logical inconsistency.

Based on sheer logic I have to agree. This person does not under any circumstances advocate killing. A fact stated by himself. So he would clearly rather be speaking German or a labourer.
 
  • #92
jarednjames said:
but just to clarify, does it say he didn't add it?

regardless, the sound does add to the video if you don't realize it's fake.
I don't know for sure either way, but I'd wager the sound is straight from the camera mic, and the video has been around well before that video Schism was created. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkXu1UVTSzU", it's easier to judge the sound there as it doesn't have any music overlayed.
Cyrus said:
Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true...
Are you claiming our media doesn't whitewash the actions of our troops? One notable examples is the "Barny Song" torture our mainstream media played off as a humorous story, conveniently excluding the fact that it was being blasted at young men in cargo containers while flashing them with a strobe light for upwards of a day at a time if not more, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2h...over&dq=The+men+who+stare+at+goats#PPA121,M1".
Cyrus said:
...and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.
The latter part about the militant Christian camp was from an American documentary, but Wajed's point was in regard to the previous section anyway. And of course documentary footage was out of context, as the video points out explains why it was done directly after showing it.
jarednjames said:
If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.
His point being that isn't even close to what happened with Iraq.

Anyway, to address the topic directly; some troops are bad, others are good, you can't rightly judge the whole by the part either way. Many of our troops are dedicated to protecting Iraqis and helping rebuild, others are less selfless and some outright malicious. Some still firmly believe that Iraq was about defending our country from non-existent WMDs, and others are simply trying to make the best of a bad situation.

By the way, as an Army brat who's father served as an officer in the First Gulf War, and as a Marine Sergent in Vietnam before I was born, I some of the statements about our military here come off as heavily romanticised. For instance, if you want to kill people for a living; go talk to a recruiter, they've got programs specifically dedicated to training and deploying such people. On a more general note; while notions like "the few few soldiers who kill innocent people in wars" sound very civilised, how many of our solders were involved in killing innocent people during shock Shock & Awe alone? I can't say I have a reliable figure, but "few few" seems rather a stretch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
kyleb said:
Are you claiming our media doesn't whitewash the actions of our troops? One notable examples is the "Barny Song" torture our mainstream media played off as a humorous story, conveniently excluding the fact that it was being blasted at young men in cargo containers while flashing them with a strobe light for upwards of a day at a time if not more, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2h...over&dq=The+men+who+stare+at+goats#PPA121,M1".

Did you not hear about Abu-Ghraib? Guantanamo? The media has a responsiblity to report the news but also not jeopardize the safety of the troops. For the most part, if you watch good sources of news they do report the facts.

The latter part about the militant Christian camp was from an American documentary, but Wajed's point was in regard to the previous section anyway. And of course documentary footage was out of context, as the video points out explains why it was done directly after showing it.

Here we have stuff from an American documentary with ridiculous background music added to it. Wajed said that we don't get the real story in our American media while posting something from an American source. This is hypocritical.

As for the video being taken out of context: (1) It's dishonest and (2) I really don't want to hear excuses for why it was done. It was done, and it was wrong.

On a more general note; while notions like "the few few soldiers who kill innocent people in wars" sound very civilised, how many of our solders were involved in killing innocent people during shock Shock & Awe alone? I can't say I have a reliable figure, but "few few" seems rather a stretch.

This is a blanket statement with no context, nor proof. You make it sound as if the innocent civilians were killed on purpose by the military. For example, why did you fail to mention the fact that the terrorists fight US forces while hiding among civilians to maximize casualties to make the US forces look like 'innocent baby killers'? If you don't have a figure then you shouldn't say anything. When you do have a figure, put it into proper context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Right Wajeb's original statement:
"Please let's be straight forward.. do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA? "

You replied with:
kyleb said:
His point being that isn't even close to what happened with Iraq.
After I said that is not what I meant at all.

Now you tell me, where in his original statement above does it give 'his point' or does it give enough detail to extract 'his point'? Does he comment on it? NO. He simply questions do I mean Iraq and USA. Given that I gave two examples to follow my example of when pre-emptive strikes are relevant, it should have been clear I did not mean Iraq USA otherwise I would have used them for simplicity instead of bringing up the other two. But, he did not understand and the fact he asked for clarification before responding is quite responsible (avoiding situations such our past rants over mis-interpretations).
 
  • #95
Cyrus said:
Did you not hear about Abu-Ghraib? Guantanamo?
Sure, but most of the rigorous investigative reporting on those cases I've seen has been from well outside our mainstream media.
Cyrus said:
The media has a responsiblity to report the news but also not jeopardize the safety of the troops.
And how does turning the Barney Song torture into a comedy routine fall into that job?
Cyrus said:
Here we have stuff from an American documentary with ridiculous background music added to it. Wajed said that we don't get the real story in our American media while posting something from an American source. This is hypocritical, dishonest, and nonsense.
Again, Wajed wasn't referencing the part of the video which was taken from the documentry, but rather the part before it.
Cyrus said:
As for the video being taken out of context: (1) It's dishonest and (2) I really don't want to hear excuses for why it was done. It was done, and it was wrong.
I think it serves its intended purpose as a response to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kce...B81ABE96&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3" quite well, and you certainly haven't made a convincing argument to the contrary.
Cyrus said:
This is a blanket statement with no context, nor proof.
It was a question, along with my opinion, and plainly stated as much. Are you not comfortable addressing that question?
Cyrus said:
You make it sound as if the innocent civilians were killed on purpose by the military.
You read that in yourself, but since you mention it, it's not like our troops expected all the bombs to magically miss the innocent civilians.
Cyrus said:
For example, why did you fail to mention the fact that the terrorists fight US forces while hiding among civilians to maximize casualties to make the US forces look like 'innocent baby killers'? If you don't have a figure then you shouldn't say anything. When you do have a figure, put it into proper context.
You are conflating, my comment was in regard to the Shock & Awe campaign when we were toppling Saddam's regime, not hunting terrorists.

Also, I did you come up with the characterization of "innocent baby killers" on your own? I know I didn't say anything of the sort. As for figures, I haven't seen any dedicated to specifically to babies, but http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/12/" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
jarednjames said:
After I said that is not what I meant at all.
Sure, you replied as I was completing my post, but the point remains that that other examples are abstractions from the topic at hand. Preemptive war is a notable argument against the the absolutist claim that "killing=bad", but doesn't rightly apply in the context of Iraq.
 
  • #97
kyleb said:
Again, Wajed wasn't referencing the part of the video which was taken from the documentry, but rather the part before it.

What? The point myself and Cyrus has made is that Wajeb is complaining about western media twisting facts. And then for him to submit a piece for us to view which, a) is about as twisted as the creator could make it and b) is FROM western media, destroys his argument as he is relying on that which he dislikes and slanders as evidence to back up one of his statements, albeit on another subject, you cannot submit to us a piece of so called 'evidence' from a source you have just had a go at for being biased and twisting.
 
Last edited:
  • #98
kyleb said:
Sure, you replied as I was completing my post, but the point remains that that other examples are abstractions from the topic at hand. Preemptive war is a notable argument against the the absolutist claim that "killing=bad", but doesn't rightly apply in the context of Iraq.

No, it doesn't. I agree with you there. BUT WHERE DID I SAY IT DID? I'm trying to stay on topic here with the OP. But the discussion got to pre-emptive war, in relation to 'killing=bad', and I was asked where it applies and was asked for an example for which I provided two. At NO POINT did I related it to the USA or Iraq, Wajeb did, and then when Wajeb asked is that what I meant I said no and explained why it does not fit the context, despite being classed as a pre-emptive war by Bush.

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Pre-emptive_strike.html - I know it has nothing to do with the debate, but it outlines what Bush did as 'pre-emptive war action'.

This thread isn't about the Iraq - USA conflict. So not all posts need to relate to it.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
jarednjames said:
What? The point myself and Cyrus has made is that Wajeb is complaining about western media twisting facts. And then for him to submit a piece for us to view which, a) is about as twisted as the creator could make it and b) is FROM western media, destroys his argument as he is relying on that which he dislikes and slanders as evidence to back up one of his statements, albeit on another subject, you cannot submit to us a piece of so called 'evidence' from a source you have just had a go at for being biased and twisting.
Where was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkXu1UVTSzU", which is the video Wajeb was referencing included in the video he posted, shown on Western media? And again, I don't see any reason to support your claim that the voice-over is fake, it sounds legit to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
I believe he linked this video which is what we are talking about:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #101
jarednjames said:
No, it doesn't. I agree with you there. BUT WHERE DID I SAY IT DID? I'm trying to stay on topic here with the OP. But the discussion got to pre-emptive war, in relation to 'killing=bad', and I was asked where it applies and for an example and I provided one. At NO POINT have I related it to the USA or Iraq, when Wajeb asked is that what I mean I said no and explained why.

This thread isn't about the Iraq - USA conflict. So not all posts need to relate to it.
Sure, but Wajed, responses to you were obviously attempts to persuade you to address the situation of Iraq conflict rather than abstracting to other examples.
 
  • #102
Well I prefer to stick to the thread topic, I will answer other topics within but I don't see why we have to stick with Iraq USA. Why not abstract to other examples? If I'm bringing in more to support my side of things then why should I refrain?

Besides, at that point we were dealing with pre-emptive war, NOT the Iraw-USA conflict. So my examples (seeing as Wajeb asked for them) are perfectly valid.
 
  • #103
jarednjames said:
I believe he linked this video which is what we are talking about:

Right, and his comments along with linking it make it clear he was referencing the portion of the video showing the footage which I linked to an earlier copy of above. You claimed it was from Western media, so again I ask; where was that footage ever presented on Western media?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
kyleb said:
Right, and his comments along with linking it make it clear he was referencing the portion of the video showing the footage which I linked to an earlier copy of above. You claimed it was from Western media, so again I ask; where was that footage ever presented on Western media?

I don't know what's big deal about that video. US police beats up US civilians every other day.

And, yes western media did cover many tortures stories. It just nonsense to claim that *all* Western media is biased and hides many facts.

P.S. Things went wrong and some troops misconducted, and innocent people lost lives because of troops mistakes or misconduct. It does not mean that US is wrong or US is responsible for all of those things.
 
  • #105
rootX said:
I don't know what's big deal about that video. US police beats up US civilians every other day.

And, yes western media did cover many tortures stories. It just nonsense to claim that *all* Western media is biased and hides many facts.

Exactly right there.
 

Similar threads

News DoD Report on the Fort Hood Shooting & Comparing to Christmas Day Attack
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
62
Views
8K
News Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
News Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
News Worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks
    • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
News Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings
    • General Discussion
5
Replies
144
Views
16K
News Will Bin Laden's truce offer bring an end to attacks on Europe?
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Should cartoonists be killed for drawing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?
    • General Discussion
6
Replies
201
Views
36K
News Spain Muslims Issue Fatwa Against Bin Laden
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
42
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top