A thought about dealing with Islamic terrorists


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do not think we can counter the current terrorist threat with a mantra of, "Can't we all just be nice and get along with one another?"  In general it has been my observation throughout history that when one group want to take something from another group and is willing to use force and violence that those that are not willing to match the force and violence - will loose much more that what was initially demanded.

 

"Force and violence".  It depends on what you include under this umbrella.  The viciousness of the desecration of the dead that you described is something I don't see as helping our cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teancum took on the role of an assassin.  I have no problem using assassins given the right circumstances and motivations.  But that was not your initial idea.

 

*****************************

 

I believe you underestimate what we understand.  I understand perfectly who we're up against and why they do what they do. But I don't see how your proposals in the OP would address any of that.

 

What I see is a situation very similar to Lachoneus and the Gadiantons.  I hope I'm not mixing up stories in my head.  There were some things that they couldn't do to defend themselves.  But they saw no way to defend themselves without breaking some cardinal rules of "righteous" warfare -- like, you don't strike first.  While we have not struck first, we have other rules that are just as certain and just as strong.  This tends to handicap us a bit.  

 

While in war, many constraints are by necessity loosened.  But if we really believe our principles and we believe in God's justice and protection, then we have to declare that there are some lines we just don't cross.  While I'm not the guru to tell anyone what those lines are, we have to recognize such lines exist.

 

Would you consider swearing an oath before the G-d they worship to forever end violence or be put to death (decapitated) on the spot as crossing a line?  Would you support singling out people of a specific faith to such a thing if they are considering emigration?  Or for individuals including citizens already here?

 

To be honest - the worse thing (line to cross) that I can think of is to take up arms and go kill individuals.  Yet, in war time we think such individuals as heroes - but in all cases of those I have personal relationship with - the taking of life haunts them in ways I am not sure you understand.

 

One thing I learned serving in the military - whatever line you may think should not be crossed will be greatly changed and altered when someone is trying to kill you and those that you care about.  In the words of Winston Churchill, "There are things worse than war and they all come from loosing one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Force and violence".  It depends on what you include under this umbrella.  The viciousness of the desecration of the dead that you described is something I don't see as helping our cause.

 

More so than desecrating a life?  or allowing the desecration of a innocent life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are referring to in the first paragraph.  You may be referring to Muslim requirements of Christians.  But you'd be wrong.  Many are not even asking for such an oath.  They are simply executing them without a choice.  Or you may e referring to Capt. Moroni.  But in his case, he was the defender, not the aggressor.  And a lot more details that are not exactly as you're describing.

 

Your second and third paragraphs contradict one another.  "The worst thing is to take up arms to kill someone"  then "There are worse things than war."

 

Traveler, I'd like to try to understand you.  I am trying to be a friend who happens to disagree.  But Post #28 doesn't really make sense.

 

I said "it doesn't help our cause."  

You responded,"More so than..."  

Huh?  Could you rephrase or expound?  I'm not getting your meaning or how that ties into what I said.

 

They're doing some very bad things.  I understand.  Does that mean we need to do the exact same bad things?  All of them?  Then we need to enslave and ravish all their women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A note - My suggestion in starting this thread was to suggest a way to end terrorism.  A terrorism that we have not seen or dealt with before on such a scale in this country.  We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan to end that war with them - but much more we destroyed the nation's religion.  And in all the criticisms of history I have read - I have not read a single article criticizing the destruction of a religion. 

 

As a country we claim to protect the right to worship and for religion but in war we ended the first amendment right of our enemies.  I know of no law even for the citizens of this country the protects any right or assume any rights for the dead.

 

I realize that my suggestion is not ideal - but what I do not understand is why among all the critics of this forum - no one is willing to suggest a "better" idea that has even a remote chance of ending this conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are referring to in the first paragraph.  You may be referring to Muslim requirements of Christians.  But you'd be wrong.  Many are not even asking for such an oath.  They are simply executing them without a choice.  Or you may e referring to Capt. Moroni.  But in his case, he was the defender, not the aggressor.  And a lot more details that are not exactly as you're describing.

 

Your second and third paragraphs contradict one another.  "The worst thing is to take up arms to kill someone"  then "There are worse things than war."

 

Traveler, I'd like to try to understand you.  I am trying to be a friend who happens to disagree.  But Post #28 doesn't really make sense.

 

I said "it doesn't help our cause."  

You responded,"More so than..."  

Huh?  Could you rephrase or expound?  I'm not getting your meaning or how that ties into what I said.

 

They're doing some very bad things.  I understand.  Does that mean we need to do the exact same bad things?  All of them?  Then we need to enslave and ravish all their women?

 

Thank you for your concerns - I am beginning to realize that I do not think we understand the terrorists we are dealing with in this country.  The most recent incident we had a woman that came to this country and was welcomed with open arms and given gifts at a baby shower by innocent ladies trying to understand and help the female immigrant.  This lady terrorists planned a plotted to murder some of the ladies that hod shown her kindness - and then she went and murdered those that had been kind to her - this lady terrorist planned for years to come to America and murder someone that has never offended them or their religion or anyone in their religion.  She came planning to hit a soft target.

 

My effort is to protect our soft targets in a way that those willing to search out and hit soft targets realize that it is not worth it.  My suggestions are the only rational option I have figured out.  But if someone has a better idea - I would really like a better option.  But to be sure - I do not want to see any of my grandchildren gunned down in a play ground and realizing that even preteen girls have been kidnapped and sold as sex slaves and the response that came out of our white house was to twitter pleas to terrorists not to do such a thing - seems to embolden those terrorists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in why you are convinced that the terrorists that we have on record for the attacks here in the USA are devoted family individuals with children?  Let alone any documented devotion for children (especially non Muslims children).   I personally know several Muslims that are devoted to family and in all cases it would seem the more devoted they are to family - the more they are not supportive of any kind of terrorist activity.  

 

Also from the propaganda I have researched concerning radicalization within the Islamic community - it is very heavy on rewards in the next life - this is quite different than my understanding of Gadianton style propaganda that is much more focused on rewards (power and money) in this life.   If we are to win the propaganda challenge we must do so by convincing those that would be terrorist or those that back terrorists that there are server consequences far beyond this life that have a definite impact in the next life.

 

I do not think we can counter the current terrorist threat with a mantra of, "Can't we all just be nice and get along with one another?"  In general it has been my observation throughout history that when one group want to take something from another group and is willing to use force and violence that those that are not willing to match the force and violence - will loose much more that what was initially demanded.

 

Regarding - devoted family individuals with children:

That's not how I characterized them.

Concern for their children is used here as an expression.  It is on the exact same vein as somebody saying, "We need to stop robbing our children through uncontrollable national deficits"... it doesn't necessarily imply that you are a devoted family man with children.

 

The Gadiantons are not your everyday radical.  The Gadiantons are the master puppets like the Iranian Supreme Leader who use the Q'uran to gain power by weakening the West.  The faithful Muslims under their banner remain faithful instead of being enlightened to the corruption of their leaders because of the hope for a better future.  The rewards in the afterlife is simply a way for the leadership to apply morality to the means by which they bring forth that better future.

 

Radical Muslims in the Philippines don't just become radicalized because they're going to heaven.  That's too abstract a promise and requires a whole lot of faith against one's conscience that it can't hold a captive audience for too long.  Radical Muslims in the Philippines - just like the Palestinians and just like the Germans of WWII - go to these extremes out of desperation and a hope for a better future.  Because when one sees the hunger surround them everyday, it is not too hard to strap a bomb around yourself and walk towards the person that you were taught to be responsible for that hunger.

 

No, you can't counter that terrorist threat simply by giving them bread and platitudes.  You can't counter that terrorist threat by desecrating the thing they hang their faith on either.  You counter that terrorist threat by killing the Gadiantons and then giving them the means to make bread.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding - devoted family individuals with children:

That's not how I characterized them.

Concern for their children is used here as an expression.  It is on the exact same vein as somebody saying, "We need to stop robbing our children through uncontrollable national deficits"... it doesn't necessarily imply that you are a devoted family man with children.

 

The Gadiantons are not your everyday radical.  The Gadiantons are the master puppets like the Iranian Supreme Leader who use the Q'uran to gain power by weakening the West.  The faithful Muslims under their banner remain faithful instead of being enlightened to the corruption of their leaders because of the hope for a better future.  The rewards in the afterlife is simply a way for the leadership to apply morality to the means by which they bring forth that better future.

 

Radical Muslims in the Philippines don't just become radicalized because they're going to heaven.  That's too abstract a promise and requires a whole lot of faith against one's conscience that it can't hold a captive audience for too long.  Radical Muslims in the Philippines - just like the Palestinians and just like the Germans of WWII - go to these extremes out of desperation and a hope for a better future.  Because when one sees the hunger surround them everyday, it is not too hard to strap a bomb around yourself and walk towards the person that you were taught to be responsible for that hunger.

 

No, you can't counter that terrorist threat simply by giving them bread and platitudes.  You can't counter that terrorist threat by desecrating the thing they hang their faith on either.  You counter that terrorist threat by killing the Gadiantons and then giving them the means to make bread.

 

I am concerned with terrorists in the Philippines - but obviously not having access to bread is not a problem here.  From your background you may have some very good ideas how to deal with terrorists in the Philippines.  My suggestion is how to deal with terrorists here in the USA.  I do not think TSA is doing much more that costing the price of airline tickets to go up.  My suggestion is not to hunt down and kill anyone - as you have suggested.   My suggestion is something to do when everything else we try had completely failed and is not working and we end up with a shoot out and a bunch dead.  Something to do with the already dead terrorists.

 

We can still try all kinds of things - My suggestion is for when those things fail.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for what it's worth, I copied and pasted Traveler's opening post into one of Dan P's Islamic-terror-themed blog posts and asked for a response.  Within a day it was deleted as spam, and I think Dr. P is the only one adminning his blog.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two saber-rattling things on my facebook wall today:

 

"The only way to win a war is to kill enough of the enemy that they do not want to fight you any more."

 

"If violence isn't your last resort, then you didn't use enough violence..."

 

Both are rather extreme and sensationally-worded, and indeed it is hard to go to war against 'terrorists' who wear no country's uniform.  But I think both quotes have a certain wisdom.  War is not something that should be entered into lightly, but once done, it should be settled as quickly as possible with brutal decisive ruthlessness.  Diplomacy, bargaining, sanctions, and other kinds of pressure are the things you do before you decide to go to war.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A note - My suggestion in starting this thread was to suggest a way to end terrorism...

 

I realize that my suggestion is not ideal - but what I do not understand is why among all the critics of this forum - no one is willing to suggest a "better" idea that has even a remote chance of ending this conflict.

 

If you were simply asking for a solution, that's a different story.  You seemed to be saying, "Here's a solution.  Why don't we do it?"

 

My opinion: The nation needs to return to God.  An enemy like this is not destroyed "only" by violence.  Yes, a level of violence is required.  But the demoralizing that you suggest is not accomplished by any level of violence we can level at them.  If you believe this, I don't think you can appreciate how desperate/angry/evil they are.  Only the fear of God can demoralize them.  That will take a military solution, a political solution, and a spiritual solution all combined.

 

The likelihood of all three coming together in a coordinated effort, IMHO, is low.

 

The reason why I don't believe your OP would solve anything is that: 

 

You can't con a con-man.  

You can't out-bureaucrat an old Soviet bureaucrat.

You can't out-hate or out-evil these terrorists without becoming one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our nation needs to return to God?  Hey, I'm totally down with that, and believe it would fix many broken things, both in the country and in the world.  That said:

 

An enemy like this is not destroyed "only" by violence.  Yes, a level of violence is required.  But the demoralizing that you suggest is not accomplished by any level of violence we can level at them.  If you believe this, I don't think you can appreciate how desperate/angry/evil they are.  Only the fear of God can demoralize them.  That will take a military solution, a political solution, and a spiritual solution all combined.

 

Total bunk.  You can absolutely destroy an enemy by destroying them with violence.  It's an irrefutable fact of our mortal probation, proved time and time again throughout history.  It doesn't matter how desperate/angry/evil someone is, if you open a big enough hole in them so they bleed out, it stops them.

 

I mean, you're thinking like a good disciple of Christ and all.  Killing everyone to solve problems is a horrible thing.  It might cause more problems than it solves.  History (and God) may conclude a few things about the goodness of our souls.  But no, you can't really claim it doesn't work.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am concerned with terrorists in the Philippines - but obviously not having access to bread is not a problem here.  From your background you may have some very good ideas how to deal with terrorists in the Philippines.  My suggestion is how to deal with terrorists here in the USA.  I do not think TSA is doing much more that costing the price of airline tickets to go up.  My suggestion is not to hunt down and kill anyone - as you have suggested.   My suggestion is something to do when everything else we try had completely failed and is not working and we end up with a shoot out and a bunch dead.  Something to do with the already dead terrorists.

 

We can still try all kinds of things - My suggestion is for when those things fail.

 

Americans trained our special forces who, with their in-depth knowledge of the terrain and the equipment afforded to them by the Americans, managed to lop off the heads of the top 3 leaders of Abbu Sayyaf.

 

Terrorists in the USA:

There are two kinds - the idiotic glory-seeking American who has a macabre idea of heroism.

                                - the faithful Muslim immigrant infiltrating the belly of the beast.

 

The first kind is no different than the idiots who think shooting up a school and going down in a blaze of glory because they were bullied is an awesome thing to do.  They'd willingly go sign up for ISIS to get the same glory.

 

The second kind is the ones who have been conditioned that the prosperity of the West is the reason for their systemic poverty and lack of peace.  They're the ones who are "hungry".

 

When all things fail, we don't abandon our humanity.  We become martyrs for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorists in the USA:

There are two kinds - the idiotic glory-seeking American who has a macabre idea of heroism.

                                - the faithful Muslim immigrant infiltrating the belly of the beast.

Interesting take on the issue.  

 

These folks have a slightly different take, lumping them into Jihadist and nonJihadist categories, which I think may be a bit more accurate.  Surely jihadists like Major Hassan, Abdulhakim Muhammad, Naveed Haq, Ali Brown, and others were born in the US - hardly immigrants.  Grassroots self-radicalized terrorists are a big problem.  Not really seeking glory, but change.  There's a reason why Anonymous's efforts of waging war focused on killing off ISIS social media accounts.

 

Again, I think we do ourselves a disservice when we just assume people who commit deadly acts of terrorism are idiots, because of course only idiots would want to do such things.  I don't find that helpful.  Nidal Hassan, for example, earned a medical degree, completed a residency in psychiatry, completed his Masters in Public Health degree, and got himself promoted up to Major in the Army, before going on his killing spree that claimed 13 lives and injured 32.  

 

There do seem to be recurring themes of mental illness with a lot of these folks.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this?

We (with a president who'd actually follow through) threaten to destroy Medina with nuclear weaponry on the next terrorist incident. If there is another one, it's Mecca. No negotiations, no delay: the event is identified as a terrorist attack, and the missile launches within one minute.

Yes, I know this violates at least one of the Geneva Conventions (and doubtless the morals and sensibilities of most of us, not least me) and I'm not really proposing it for now. I am suggesting that only something like this could stop the terrorists long enough for them to consider the cost.

Islamic terrorists have, as I see it, two goals: one to make the Islamic religion universal either by conversion or murder, and to force all Muslims to live the religion according to their conceptions of the religion, again, by conversion or murder. They are willing, and even anxious, to die to achieve these ends. Martyrdom assures them of their reward, so killing them, or even killing their families, does nothing to reduce the threat, and may even encourage more to become "radicalized". They want the Koran to be the only book (as one Mouselemen said, as he fired the Great Library of Alexandria, "If any of this is against the Koran, it's false, if it is not against the Koran, it's in the Koran."). They want a single call to prayer five times a day, no exceptions. They are willing to kill if someone drops a copy of the Koran, and they think saying that Mouhamet was a pedophile for marrying an 8-year-old is blasphemy and worthy of death, even if the slayer/avenger dies in the attempt. Killing them is not the answer.

If the second most "holy" site in their world were to be threatened with total destruction, some would stop their war. Were it destroyed, the rest would, we can hope, stop their aggression.

The unfortunate part of this is that I don't see any other way to get their attention enough to make them stop to reconsider.

Anyone else got any ideas with enough cultural force behind them to work? 'Cuz I don't like mine at all.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we convince Islamic terrorists that their methods are evil?  I have pondered this problem and have a thought.  My idea would do away with the need for TSA, surveillance and a raft of other expensive programs that are simply not working.   Interesting terrorists seem to be on a suicide mission and end up getting killed.  So here is my plan.

 

Take the dead bodies of the terrorists and decapitate them.  This is a sign in Islam that the individual displeased Allah.  In the religion of Islam burial is important so instead of burring the decapitated body – cremate it and dispose of the ashes in the sewers of the community they defiled.  Take the head and burn “Infidel” deep into the skull written in Arabic script, place nuclear waste in the skull and place the skull facing downward (looking toward hell) under nuclear waste at the Hanford Reservation in Washington State (this to symbolize eternally burning).   

 

This would provide a deterrent and eliminate any propaganda advantage used by terrorist organizations and make it impossible to use the individuals as martyrs.  I know this sound gruesome but I do believe it would actually put a stop to religious terrorisms.

 

Turn loose the military and give them a free hand.  I guarantee that ISIS will be stamped out within a month.  However, that will never happen since we have a president who is a Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this?

We (with a president who'd actually follow through) threaten to destroy Medina with nuclear weaponry on the next terrorist incident. If there is another one, it's Mecca. No negotiations, no delay: the event is identified as a terrorist attack, and the missile launches within one minute.

Yes, I know this violates at least one of the Geneva Conventions (and doubtless the morals and sensibilities of most of us, not least me) and I'm not really proposing it for now. I am suggesting that only something like this could stop the terrorists long enough for them to consider the cost.

 

 

So, yeah, no.  Nuking Mecca and/or Medina to stop terrorists is sort of like nuking Golgotha and Bethlahem to stop guys like the Planned Parenthood killer. Or nuking the SLC temple to stop guys like the Lafferty brothers.

 

Glad you're not really proposing it, because it would make a really bad proposal.  You gotta find something the terrorists value that nobody else does for that kind of proposal.  From that perspective, Traveler's got it nailed in the OP since he's proposing a propaganda war on the souls of terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought?

 

During the 13th century (end of the crusades and Dark Ages) the most ruthless and powerful super power the world has ever known was at its height.  Kublai Khan, the grandson of Genghis had conquered the known Eastern world - except for the archipelago of Japan.  Kublai thought to conquer Japan with words demanded Japan in essence pay him taxes - Japan refused.  Kublai put together the largest armada of human history - as the reached the first islands of Japan (Hakata Bay) the Genghis hordes drove back the shoguns (who were fighting with honor of the code of Bushido), overran all Japanese citizen resistance and slaughtered every man woman and child they captured.  There was no way the Japanese were going to win this conflict.

 

The Emperor of Japan called on all the citizens to fast an pray to the G-d of Japan.  Shortly after a powerful wind arose and it was determined that the ships of the armada would be destroyed while at anchor in Hakata Bay.  Kublai moved his ships to open water where they would not be dashed against rocks of the bay into the teeth of a great storm - a storm that sunk nearly all the armada ships - what was left returned to China and this defeat in essence ended the Khan dynasty in China.  But in Japan the great storm was given a name - it was called Typhoon which means divine storm.

 

I have two thought about this history:  First is - I wonder if we have that kind of faith in our G-d?  The second thought is that we destroyed all such faith in the G-d of Japan with the deployment of two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities - killing mostly civilians (including women and children - note that we killed more Japanese noncombatants than the Japanese killed noncombatants Americans).

 

It is my view that as a country we have abandoned G-d as the proctor of our nation, laws, faith and society.  That we, as a society, do not want G-d to protect us.  And since it also appears to me that we cannot protect ourselves - claiming higher morals than our enemies - that in essence our great nation has fallen - the problem is that we just do not have the intelligence and foresight to realize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this?

We (with a president who'd actually follow through) threaten to destroy Medina with nuclear weaponry on the next terrorist incident. If there is another one, it's Mecca. No negotiations, no delay: the event is identified as a terrorist attack, and the missile launches within one minute.

Yes, I know this violates at least one of the Geneva Conventions (and doubtless the morals and sensibilities of most of us, not least me) and I'm not really proposing it for now. I am suggesting that only something like this could stop the terrorists long enough for them to consider the cost.

Islamic terrorists have, as I see it, two goals: one to make the Islamic religion universal either by conversion or murder, and to force all Muslims to live the religion according to their conceptions of the religion, again, by conversion or murder. They are willing, and even anxious, to die to achieve these ends. Martyrdom assures them of their reward, so killing them, or even killing their families, does nothing to reduce the threat, and may even encourage more to become "radicalized". They want the Koran to be the only book (as one Mouselemen said, as he fired the Great Library of Alexandria, "If any of this is against the Koran, it's false, if it is not against the Koran, it's in the Koran."). They want a single call to prayer five times a day, no exceptions. They are willing to kill if someone drops a copy of the Koran, and they think saying that Mouhamet was a pedophile for marrying an 8-year-old is blasphemy and worthy of death, even if the slayer/avenger dies in the attempt. Killing them is not the answer.

If the second most "holy" site in their world were to be threatened with total destruction, some would stop their war. Were it destroyed, the rest would, we can hope, stop their aggression.

The unfortunate part of this is that I don't see any other way to get their attention enough to make them stop to reconsider.

Anyone else got any ideas with enough cultural force behind them to work? 'Cuz I don't like mine at all.

Lehi

 

It would not require even that - All we need to do is destroy (with conventional means) the Kaaba in Mecca.  This could be done with lazer accuracy and no loss of human life.  We could claim that Allah has brought about the removal of the Kaaba because of the corruption of terrorism within Islam and the hatred allowed in mosques towards factions of Islam and towards the children of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you assume that?

Whether he is Moslem or not, his actions benefit Muselemen countries and Mooslom expansion.

Lehi

The latter claim of yours is not the same as the one I responded to. He isn't Muslim. Trying to claim he is often has the side effect of ruining the credibility of any other claims mixed in with the statement, no matter how valid they might be. Let's not perpetuate demonstratively false information here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latter claim of yours is not the same as the one I responded to.

But you didn't really answer the question I posed: Why assume O'bama is not a Moslemin?

You say that this claim is demonstrably false, but there is evidence to support it.

And, in the end, does it matter since his actions advance the Mouselem agenda?

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you didn't really answer the question I posed: Why assume O'bama is not a Moslemin?

You say that this claim is demonstrably false, but there is evidence to support it.

And, in the end, does it matter since his actions advance the Mouselem agenda?

Lehi

Actually you asked why I'd assume he is being facetious. As that is what I said I had assumed.

Happy to hear the evidence you have.

Yes, it matters. Spreading false information, at the least contributes to ruining the credibility of the person who made the claims, even if their other claims are valid and stand up to scrutiny.

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy to hear the evidence you have [that O'bama is a Moselemem].

I'm not going to give references, since these events are all in the public record a bazillion and an half times. For starters, there's his Freudian slip when being interviewed and he referenced "[his] Muslim faith". The intervirewer corrected him to say "your Christina faith} and O'bama accepted the correction.

He was raised, for some time in Indonesia, and his step father registered him in school as a Moslim.

He probably applied to college (both Columbia and Occidental) as a foreign student, else how did he get into Columbia at all, being, at best, a mediocre student at Occidental, itself a marginal school?

He cited the Muslim call to prayer as the "sweetest sound on earth."

Referencing Jeremiah Wright, he said that this "Christian" preacher showed him the way to consolidate his Moselemen beliefs with his Christianity .

He went to Moslem Kenya, and his father's family accepted him as a Moslem.

Now, is he officially Moselim? I neither know nor care. It's his actions that interest me, and those acts advance Islam, not USmerican interests.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share