IDF shoot blindfolded and handcuffed prisoner at close range with a rubber bullet.
- Thread starter Grandma Death
- Start date
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Oh do one you silly woman.
I'm simply pointing out that one biased source is easily matched by another.
I do not believe that IDF troops have targetted ambulances without reason. If they did they would be no better than the scum who target Israeli women and children so regularly.
If terrorists use ambulances to transport weapons who can complain if they're shot to bits?
A good result in my book.
.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
The IDF has conducted countless revenge attacks targeting civilians over the years. That is no secret at all, and even IDF pilots have been on record refusing to go out on sorties because they amounted to nothing else than punishment killings.
However all it takes is for an IDF spokesman when questioned about another block of flats being destroyed by a Hellfire missile or a 7 year old girl shot in the head as she walks to school is to declare that they were targeting 'militants', and the apologists will continue defending the indefensible and pretending Israel is actually any better than the 'terrorists' from the other side.
However all it takes is for an IDF spokesman when questioned about another block of flats being destroyed by a Hellfire missile or a 7 year old girl shot in the head as she walks to school is to declare that they were targeting 'militants', and the apologists will continue defending the indefensible and pretending Israel is actually any better than the 'terrorists' from the other side.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Perhaps if the miltants didn't secrete themselves and their weapons amongst civilians this would happen far less?
The IDF have every right to target militants and indeed would be remiss in their responsibilitiies to Israel if they did not.
At the moment we only have your word, that of a few other equally biased posters and a few far from independent links that the IDF have a policy to purposely target civilians. We know for damned sure that Palestinians target civilians.
The IDF have every right to target militants and indeed would be remiss in their responsibilitiies to Israel if they did not.
At the moment we only have your word, that of a few other equally biased posters and a few far from independent links that the IDF have a policy to purposely target civilians. We know for damned sure that Palestinians target civilians.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Well, without bothring to start digging about for the IDF pilots' comments just now, I hope will accept this other example in Lebanon as an appetiser...
In case you have forgotten already, entire neighbourhoods in Beirut were bombed relentlessly by Israel during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah.
Now, given that not a single bullet or rocket was ever fired from those neighbourhoods, that is proof undeniable that Israel does target civilians.
The above was a fucking war crime, nothing less. And any other nation in the world (well, excluding Russia) that had commited such atrocity would have found itself the target of the most stringest sanctions by the UN, if not bombed to fuck by the US .
In case you have forgotten already, entire neighbourhoods in Beirut were bombed relentlessly by Israel during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah.
Now, given that not a single bullet or rocket was ever fired from those neighbourhoods, that is proof undeniable that Israel does target civilians.
The above was a fucking war crime, nothing less. And any other nation in the world (well, excluding Russia) that had commited such atrocity would have found itself the target of the most stringest sanctions by the UN, if not bombed to fuck by the US .
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Perhaps you should ponder what you're saying when you state "If terrorists use ambulances to transport weapons who can complain if they're shot to bits?".
maybe reflect on whether the practice of targeting ambulances arbitrarily is fitting when it's actually a case that some ambulances are used by some terrorists when transporting weapons.
After all, transporting arms was fine when it was us running them past the mandate authorities pre-independence. Shouldn't sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander, or is the state of Israel, yet again, a "special case"?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That sentence shows a complete and utter non-understanding of the nature of guerrilla/asymmetric warfare, and of tactics used by pre-independence Jewish fighters
No, they have the "right" to target those who transgress the law. They don't have the right to carry out what amounts to arbitrary collective punishment based on assumptions about the presence of terrorists in the area giving them a legal basis to do so.
It doesn't matter whether they have a written policy or not, what matters is what is communicated to the forces on the ground from the command; the attitude of officers to non-regulation behaviour toward non-combatants etc.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I do not accept that the targetting of any ambulances is in any way arbitrary.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
So if previous terrorists have done it, so can these? Balls.
Once again VP, I take issue with your use of "arbitrary" and additionally "collective punishment"
For instance?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Did I say that? Nah.
I said that your little peroration showed a poor to non-existent understanding of what you were rattling on about.
So, you're taking issue:
Explain your position.
You see, where I'm standing "arbitrary" is a fair description of an applied punishment that doesn't conform to standard reasoning, i.e. it's not necessarily rendered against the "wrongdoer" but against people who reside in the locale of the criminal act, and "collective punishment" is a fair description of rendering that punishment against a group of people rather than against the "wrongdoer" themselves.
If your position differs, I'm sure you can elucidate.
Or should I expect you to have recourse to the "nah, can't be bothered" route?
For instance if a command comes down the line to suppress activity in a certain sector, it becomes the "problem" of the local command how they deal with it. If a local commander chooses to interpret "suppression of activity" as roadblocks, curfews etc he's within his remit as he sees it, but he may also choose to interpret "suppression of activity" in a much "heavier" manner.
Written policies are hostages to fortune. Most general staff know that operating a policy of "plausible deniability" is a great help. G-d knows we used it ourselves often enough in N.I.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What you choose to accept or not accept really doesn't matter.
Spy: "The camera not showing the shot is probably due to the girl being spooked by the shot...": That weas actually the girl's claim. However, I will illustrate just why it is false. When a shot is fired you are not spooked until you hear the sound. Watch the tape, when do YOU hear the sound? When the cam is already down and off the scene, yes? So how is she so fast as to anticipate the sound of a muzzle blast?
I will repeat my earler posts to further show why it is false. You see a recoil and smoke but you see it as the barrel is aimed down range. You never see ti aimed at the prisoner in anyway, certainly not pointing at his feet.
Rubber bullets are likely to cause death at under 150 yards, death is almost ensured at less than 25 yards. The soldier was a meter or so off the foot!
A swollen toe? A meter and he has a swollen toe?
Then, to top it off, rubber shells ricochet like mad and I did not see anyone ducking, running, taking cover, and I did not see anyone in his face ready to kick his as% as you would had it been such a scenario. As I said, whatever esle we are in the IDF it is not suicidal.
I want to thank you though for the piece on the IRC. I often have no patience to produce them and the piece on the Crescent ambulance ferrying bobms is exactly my point. Still, even with that, it would take double confirmation before one could shoot unless life was at imminent risk.
TP: "The IDF has conducted countless revenge attacks over the years.": In your mind, obviously, the IDF or IAF targetting a rocket launching site is a "revenge attack." Most rational adults would call it proactive defence.
You certainly have strong opinions on the matter. Tell me, ever have to live under terrorism? On a daily basis?
As for people ebing killed by the IDF as it hunts terrorists, etc., I take a different tack. I blame the terrorists. Do you honestly believe that Israel would even have soldiers there if people were not trying to killIsraeli non-combatants? You are aware I assume that International Law protects the rights of sovereign antions to respond to imminent threats to its sovereignity or its citizens, yes?
You are also aware I assume that collateral damage incurred inadvertantly is labled the fault of the insitgator who legally is defined as the terrorist entities, not the sovereign state, right? If not you should research it because there is very good reasons just why Israel has never even been charged by an International Tribunal.
As for Beirut, I will also remind you that there is also great reasons why Israel was never charged there. Hezbollah exists in contravention of International Law as well as Lebanese Law. Despite vows by Lebanon and UNIFIL to neutralise this great threat Hezbollah iniated a non-stop 5 month barrage of cross-border missile attacks in the winter and spring of 2006.
On July 12th of that year as they iniated yet another barrage a ccordinated attcak crossed into Israel after imploding 2 Border Barriers and fired an RPG aat an IDF Hummer killing 5 soldiers, 2 of whom they carried back across the border into Lebanon as pawns.
An hour later a Merkava was sent across as were some Infantry. The Merkva hit an IED and all crewmen were killed. thus began the 2006 War, where the incidents you reference took place. Beirut, specifically South Beirut is Hezbollah's stronghold and they operate openly. Israel, aside from being legally justified in targetting Hezbolli structures and facilities in Beirut sought to neutralise Lebanese Infrastructure which is Rule One for any army planning an incursion.
As well Hezbollah and its AMAL lapdogs used civlian edifices like the aprtment block in Qana as cover for its Katyusha launchers and weapons caches. They launch missiles and when the IDF seeks to neutralise them it sometimes incured collateral damage. You blame Israel. international Law though blames Hezbollah and Lebanon although you will not see them charged either because the Tribunal fears it would escalate tensions in the region and just lead to far more instability.
"Not a single bullet or rocket was ever fired from Beirut." Guess you missed the Israeli ship that was struck with a missle then, or the other missile launchings...I think you need to research the subject matter. As well you might want to look into ROW with regard to Infrastructure and Military Objectives outweighing risk of Collateral Damage...
Panda: I did not see that Spy said anything about "arbitrarily targetting ambulances." He simply said that IF they carry terrorists and/or weapons then he could easily understand just why they are targetted and he is absolutely correct.
I will repeat my earler posts to further show why it is false. You see a recoil and smoke but you see it as the barrel is aimed down range. You never see ti aimed at the prisoner in anyway, certainly not pointing at his feet.
Rubber bullets are likely to cause death at under 150 yards, death is almost ensured at less than 25 yards. The soldier was a meter or so off the foot!
A swollen toe? A meter and he has a swollen toe?
Then, to top it off, rubber shells ricochet like mad and I did not see anyone ducking, running, taking cover, and I did not see anyone in his face ready to kick his as% as you would had it been such a scenario. As I said, whatever esle we are in the IDF it is not suicidal.
I want to thank you though for the piece on the IRC. I often have no patience to produce them and the piece on the Crescent ambulance ferrying bobms is exactly my point. Still, even with that, it would take double confirmation before one could shoot unless life was at imminent risk.
TP: "The IDF has conducted countless revenge attacks over the years.": In your mind, obviously, the IDF or IAF targetting a rocket launching site is a "revenge attack." Most rational adults would call it proactive defence.
You certainly have strong opinions on the matter. Tell me, ever have to live under terrorism? On a daily basis?
As for people ebing killed by the IDF as it hunts terrorists, etc., I take a different tack. I blame the terrorists. Do you honestly believe that Israel would even have soldiers there if people were not trying to killIsraeli non-combatants? You are aware I assume that International Law protects the rights of sovereign antions to respond to imminent threats to its sovereignity or its citizens, yes?
You are also aware I assume that collateral damage incurred inadvertantly is labled the fault of the insitgator who legally is defined as the terrorist entities, not the sovereign state, right? If not you should research it because there is very good reasons just why Israel has never even been charged by an International Tribunal.
As for Beirut, I will also remind you that there is also great reasons why Israel was never charged there. Hezbollah exists in contravention of International Law as well as Lebanese Law. Despite vows by Lebanon and UNIFIL to neutralise this great threat Hezbollah iniated a non-stop 5 month barrage of cross-border missile attacks in the winter and spring of 2006.
On July 12th of that year as they iniated yet another barrage a ccordinated attcak crossed into Israel after imploding 2 Border Barriers and fired an RPG aat an IDF Hummer killing 5 soldiers, 2 of whom they carried back across the border into Lebanon as pawns.
An hour later a Merkava was sent across as were some Infantry. The Merkva hit an IED and all crewmen were killed. thus began the 2006 War, where the incidents you reference took place. Beirut, specifically South Beirut is Hezbollah's stronghold and they operate openly. Israel, aside from being legally justified in targetting Hezbolli structures and facilities in Beirut sought to neutralise Lebanese Infrastructure which is Rule One for any army planning an incursion.
As well Hezbollah and its AMAL lapdogs used civlian edifices like the aprtment block in Qana as cover for its Katyusha launchers and weapons caches. They launch missiles and when the IDF seeks to neutralise them it sometimes incured collateral damage. You blame Israel. international Law though blames Hezbollah and Lebanon although you will not see them charged either because the Tribunal fears it would escalate tensions in the region and just lead to far more instability.
"Not a single bullet or rocket was ever fired from Beirut." Guess you missed the Israeli ship that was struck with a missle then, or the other missile launchings...I think you need to research the subject matter. As well you might want to look into ROW with regard to Infrastructure and Military Objectives outweighing risk of Collateral Damage...
Panda: I did not see that Spy said anything about "arbitrarily targetting ambulances." He simply said that IF they carry terrorists and/or weapons then he could easily understand just why they are targetted and he is absolutely correct.
Panda:"Good for the goose is good for the gander.": IF Yishuv militias used ambulances to transport weapons and/or fighters then I would have no complaints about anyone targetting them in a per se discussion (in that I of course do not agree with England even being there let alone fighting there). It does not matter who does it, if it is done it is wrong. But this is now. You may wish to believe that it happened pre-Statehood but I have never heard it did and my dad fought in that war, as well as I knowing manny others as well. I imagine it could have however but that is neither here nor threre.
YMU made a claim about an ambulance in Shechem, I metnioned that IRC vehichles and staff are knee deep in it and that justifies interdiction in SOME cases, that WAS the point. Spy produced documentation to back up what I said abnnd now you bring up soemthing that POSSIBLY happened 60 years ago as what? 2 wrongs make a right? That would be the ONLY logic expressed and even there it is a stretch as I said.
"Assymetircal warfare and yishuv militias using civilians as cover.": No, quite different. For one, no militias used non-combatants to hide behind. Most any street demo in the so called "WB" and Gaza beforee it has armed gunmen firing on their kneews behind kids and women. "Palestinians" also often hope the IDF will fire back and incur collateral damage so as to score PR points and this NEVER was the case in the Yishuv. Finally, noone in the Yishuv targetted British civilians. The King David by the way, incase you latch onto that, was the British Military HQ so even there it is as I say.
That the dynamic is true of Assymetrical Warfare is inconsequential because by that very same token so is the Counter Insurgency methodology employed by the IDF that sometimes results in collateral losses. No methodology excuses the Arabs' propensity of hiding behind children and women, in plain clothes, and engaging legal soldiers. Their actions actually clearly violate IHL if anything.
"Arbitrary collective punishment.": Of course International Law does not support you there either. Israel DOES have the right to engage terrorists and to neutralise them, their sites, and their equipment and that is exactly what is done. When the IDF or IAF shell a site in Gaza it is not because HAMAS is in power, or because Gazans hate Israel, it is done because specific signatures are picked up in a specific place, or Intel,etc. is received and they are to be addressed. As Spy correctly reminded you Israel would be remiss if it were not to do so.
"Officers communciate that unlawful actions should be undertaken so it does not matter whethe ror not Israel or the IDF has or has no regulations or directives calling for illegal acts against non-combatants.": Ahhhh Panda engaging in Blood Libel...nice. Well here is a newsflash for you. I was , until alst summer, one of those officers. Before that I was also an NCO and a soldier and spent years in Gaza and the so called "WB" and I will tell you that not only have I never been told or told others to do anything like that, I have never even hear dof a single person being told to do those things.
An institutional policy written or otherwise would be detected in specific patterns of behavior and despite your cherished fonts of propaganda no such pattern has ever existed. With all the snitches walking around do you really imagine that such a policy would not be revealed? We are a citizen's arm with a pool of more than a million at any given time including all Reservists and such and yet noone has ever been able to record an oficer saying such a thing? It is absolute nonsense.
Accusing Israel or its representatives of purposely hurting or killing is nothing more and nothing less than actual Blood Libel.
YMU made a claim about an ambulance in Shechem, I metnioned that IRC vehichles and staff are knee deep in it and that justifies interdiction in SOME cases, that WAS the point. Spy produced documentation to back up what I said abnnd now you bring up soemthing that POSSIBLY happened 60 years ago as what? 2 wrongs make a right? That would be the ONLY logic expressed and even there it is a stretch as I said.
"Assymetircal warfare and yishuv militias using civilians as cover.": No, quite different. For one, no militias used non-combatants to hide behind. Most any street demo in the so called "WB" and Gaza beforee it has armed gunmen firing on their kneews behind kids and women. "Palestinians" also often hope the IDF will fire back and incur collateral damage so as to score PR points and this NEVER was the case in the Yishuv. Finally, noone in the Yishuv targetted British civilians. The King David by the way, incase you latch onto that, was the British Military HQ so even there it is as I say.
That the dynamic is true of Assymetrical Warfare is inconsequential because by that very same token so is the Counter Insurgency methodology employed by the IDF that sometimes results in collateral losses. No methodology excuses the Arabs' propensity of hiding behind children and women, in plain clothes, and engaging legal soldiers. Their actions actually clearly violate IHL if anything.
"Arbitrary collective punishment.": Of course International Law does not support you there either. Israel DOES have the right to engage terrorists and to neutralise them, their sites, and their equipment and that is exactly what is done. When the IDF or IAF shell a site in Gaza it is not because HAMAS is in power, or because Gazans hate Israel, it is done because specific signatures are picked up in a specific place, or Intel,etc. is received and they are to be addressed. As Spy correctly reminded you Israel would be remiss if it were not to do so.
"Officers communciate that unlawful actions should be undertaken so it does not matter whethe ror not Israel or the IDF has or has no regulations or directives calling for illegal acts against non-combatants.": Ahhhh Panda engaging in Blood Libel...nice. Well here is a newsflash for you. I was , until alst summer, one of those officers. Before that I was also an NCO and a soldier and spent years in Gaza and the so called "WB" and I will tell you that not only have I never been told or told others to do anything like that, I have never even hear dof a single person being told to do those things.
An institutional policy written or otherwise would be detected in specific patterns of behavior and despite your cherished fonts of propaganda no such pattern has ever existed. With all the snitches walking around do you really imagine that such a policy would not be revealed? We are a citizen's arm with a pool of more than a million at any given time including all Reservists and such and yet noone has ever been able to record an oficer saying such a thing? It is absolute nonsense.
Accusing Israel or its representatives of purposely hurting or killing is nothing more and nothing less than actual Blood Libel.
Panda: "If a command comes down the line.": IF the UK armed forces have that much operational freedom I pity them. In ISrael we do not have anything like that. One thing that is fluid ARE the ROE, but even there there well defined paramters that cannot be contrvened. Operational Protocol is incredibly stringent. IF any turai has a problem he can radio an 08, and barring acceptable answer radio FOB for a higher rank. ANY questionable order is explored. This is drilled in at Tironout and written guidelines reiterate this before deployment into Forward Areas.
Taking your example to heart, Israeli sodliers do not have the ability to institute roadblocks without written orders. Operational Freedom comes into play in wartime, we are famous for it but in policing actions like Gaza and the so called "WB" we have none, at all. However, even in wartime you cannot do certain things and that never changes.
As for deniability, we do not have that luxury. We operate in the most densely populated areas on the planet and these places are innundated with CCTV, private cameras, and of course foreign do gooders who would love nothing better then to catch us with our pants down. We get weeks in prison for changing the channel on an Arab's tv when we are doing C/T and Entries. That you would imagine it as some sort of free for all is not suprising, many do but nothing could be further from the truth.
Taking your example to heart, Israeli sodliers do not have the ability to institute roadblocks without written orders. Operational Freedom comes into play in wartime, we are famous for it but in policing actions like Gaza and the so called "WB" we have none, at all. However, even in wartime you cannot do certain things and that never changes.
As for deniability, we do not have that luxury. We operate in the most densely populated areas on the planet and these places are innundated with CCTV, private cameras, and of course foreign do gooders who would love nothing better then to catch us with our pants down. We get weeks in prison for changing the channel on an Arab's tv when we are doing C/T and Entries. That you would imagine it as some sort of free for all is not suprising, many do but nothing could be further from the truth.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Why would I say that? I'm happy to elucidate as I believe you to be wrong.
VP said:
I absolutely agree with your definition of "arbitrary".
However I do not believe it's the way that the IDF have gone about targetting ambulances.
a) I do not believe that any soldier has been ordered to hit an ambulance unless inteligence has shown it's likely to be a threat or carrying weapons.
b) The IDF is one of the most efficient military machines on the planet. If ambulances were targetted according to your definition of "arbitrary", there would be none left out there.
c) I think it far more likely that some ambulances may have been targetted specifically not "arbitrarily", because they were believed to be in the process of "wrongdoing"!
d) What does Isael have to gain by "arbitrarily" targetting civilians and ambulances?
e) Got any links???????
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Why don't you go and find those comments? I'd be interested to know what exactly they said.
Are you aware that RAF aircrew have also been critical of orders to bomb from altitude? These orders were issued despite weapons being significantly less accurate from these heights, in order to prevent losses of aircraft to surface to air ordnance.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I was recalling your "nah, can't be arsed" attitude on another thread in this forum.
The idea of "plausible deniability" seems to have passed you by.
How you arrived at that conclusion is frankly beyond me, as arbitrary targeting would merely mean that you wouldn't know where or when to expect the targeting of the ambulance, it wouldn't follow a prescribed pattern (brass hats being very fond of patterns, ticks in boxes etc.
Mmmm, I think you must have missed the multitude of stories about ambulances going about their normal business being interdicted at checkpoints, interdicted en route to hospitals etc, often causing medical problems or deaths unnecessarily.
What any state fighting a war against a section of it's own population gains: Terror.
Try reading General Sir Frank Kitson's "Low Intensity Operations". You can generally find a 2nd-hand copy for a couple of quid. It's badly-written (IMHO) and a bit thoughtless, but it spells out how states in the above situation can reap benefits from it (Kitson, btw, "blooded" himself in Kenya and was GOC Northern Ireland, and was an old hand in such practices by the time he wrote his book)
On which point, precisely?e) Got any links???????
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Hmmm, I'm reckoning one side will see this as "paid holiday for colonel for allowing assault on Palestinian man", and the other side will see this as "Colonel suspended due to Palestinian conspiracy".
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I was recalling your "nah, can't be arsed" attitude on another thread in this forum.
Please quote it here VP. There are one or two posters that I genuinely "can't be arsed" with, but you are not one of them, so I'd happily clear up any perceived shortcomings from previous threads here.
Does it? Nice line. Means nothing unless you care to explain it's significance in this context.
With respect VP, this is just waffly shit. "Arbitray targetting" would mean that ambulances were targetted randomly, yes. But also as a matter of course. If that were the case, and the IDF were the monsters that you believe, that "random" pattern and the soldiers knowledge that they could attack them as such, would account for many more of the vehicles than have actually been hit.
That's a no brainer.
Or do you believe that every now and then an IDF soldier gets bored and shoots up the next ambulance that appears
? Again. If ambulances are known to be a favoured method of transporting weapons (and they are) they should be stopped at checkpoints. Medical problems that occur as a result are the fault of the terrorists who militarise the vehicles, not those that stop them, FFS!
I'll give it a go. Thank you.
ETA> Can't find the book for less than £22 on Abe
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
They would if/when the missiles strike alleged rocket factories. They can't when they strike blocks of flats or crowds on the streets.
On a daily basis? No, I'm not a Palestinian. I have lived under regular terrorism for many years in Spain though. Nor that it should matter whether someone is qualified to comment on a conflict. Neither does it mean that does who suffer from terrorism have the right to do just anything they want, no matter how wrong and barbaric.
What does that got to do with killing civilians then?
Utter bullshit. Specially when the sovereign nation in question is engaging in State Terrorism itself, as well as war crimes.
Yes. The reason is called U.S.A.
Your attempts to justify indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas are as ludicrious as they are pathetic. Under the international laws you're so fond of, deliberate targeting of civilians is illegal, and can even be a war crime. No ifs, no buts, no excuses. Absolutely nothing justifies obliterating entire residential neighbourhoods populated by civilians. End of. That you attempt to justify such monstrosity makes you a disturbing extremist every bit as deprived of humanity as the very 'terrorists' from Hamas and Hezbollah you despise so much.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
There is absolutely no evidence that the IDF have ever killed civilians-a memorable line from Rach.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Sorry are you actually arguing against sniping from the sidelines? Bit rich no?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
I disagree with the actions of the Israeli state, that have, on many occasions-shown scant regard for civilian casualities. The offensive against Lebanon is the prime case in point. When engaging with an 'enemy' in accordance with International Law great care should be taken to minimise the level of casualty deaths and I don't believe Israel has exercised a great deal of restraint when it comes to combatting terrorism.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Again I stress International Law dictates that great care should be taken fighting any sort of offensive in a civilian area. I cant even see how it is possible to do anything of the sort when launching an offensive against 'terrorists'.
Despicable.
Similar threads
- Poll
