US Green Berets Joining Hunt For Abu Sayyaf

Kefka · March 24, 2002

"JAKARTA, March 23 (IslamOnline) – U.S. Special Forces are expected to join Philippine troops in hunting down Abu Sayyaf rebels in Basilan and rescuing an American missionary couple now on their ninth month of captivity, news report said on Saturday. This is not the first time that the U.S. said it will allow troops to be involved in the search and rescue operation of two American citizens held hostage by Muslim rebels in the Philippines. The news report indicates that the U.S. will allow its troops to altogether join the local military forces in search and destroy operations in order to eliminate the Abu Sayyaf. The Philippines military, the report said, has denied the information but did not discount the possibility of Americans engaging in direct battle to rescue Martin and Grace Burnyham who are from Texas and Deborah Yap, who is a Filipina nurse. On Thursday, two U.S. teams of Green Berets were involved in the Lantawan clash that wounded seven Scout Rangers. Heavy fighting continued for hours but the U.S. and Philippines led troops could not resist the large Abu Sayyaf formation that was in the region. They managed to flee and elude the military once again, frustrating the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo administration over the army's failure to deal with the kidnap gang. Earlier Filipino and U.S. officials stressed that U.S. soldiers were not in the field for combat, but only “to assess the training needs” of Filipinos. However, on Thursday there was an extraordinary number of Green Berets around the battle scene, indicating that the “war games” have entered a new phase. About 30 U.S. Green Berets were split into two groups “to go with the two platoons” of Scout Rangers, after a tip on rebel presence in Barangay Bauwisan. But before Green Berets reached the site, the first Ranger group had already engaged the group of Abu Sayyaf Commander Isnilon Hapilon. The Rangers apparently stumbled on what they believed to be the main Abu Sayyaf force in Basilan. Soldiers who later entered the rebels’ makeshift camp in Tairan Plantation, Sitio Lubuk, Bulanza, Lantawan, said they recovered clothing indicating the group was holding the Burnhams. However the military and local intelligence does not have any idea where the Burnhams actually are. Sources said a week ago the two Americans and the Filipino nurse were moved to Maguindanao while the Abu sayyaf were fleeing army troops. For the past two days, U.S. Special Forces have also been doing jump-off para-dives at a military camp in Basilan. The group has focused on HALO (High Altitude Low Opening) drop, which is suited for covert jungle insertions. The idea is that the troops would be parachuted near Abu Sayyaf lairs in order to have direct contact with them. The U.S. troops will be equipped with weapons that are needed in guerrilla operations, the news report from Manila said. The Abu Sayyaf became prominent in the year 2000 when it seized dozens of Europeans and South East Asians as hostages on the Island of Palawan, Malaysia. Since then it has been a cat and mouse game between the army and the rebels, who are well versed with the rugged terrain of Basilan the military said. The U.S. has branded the Abu Sayyaf group as a terror organization linked to the al-Qaida organization of Osama Bin Laden." <a href="http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2002-03/23/article32.shtml" target="_blank">Islam-Online</a> Funny, the US are "lecturing and training" the Filipino soldiers in a region similar to Vietnam. And we all know what happened there...

PCS · March 24, 2002

Why the troops are there in the first place. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/01/10/phil.sayyaf/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/01/10/phil.sayyaf/</a> Report of the Lantawan clash <a href="http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/20320IPhilippines-USTroops.html" target="_blank">http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/20320IPhilippines- USTroops.html</a> <a href="http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/726253.asp?cp1=1#BODY" target="_blank">http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/726253.asp?cp1=1#BODY</a> Interesing to note are the discrepencies between reports. The second site has information on the group Abu Sayyaf. Here's another on a different battle. <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/230302/dLFOR41.asp" target="_blank">http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/230302/dLFOR41.asp</a> Seems to me another difference is that there seems to be no information given by Islam Online to substantiate the story written. The Author quotes no sources and seems to arrive at conclusions based on little info. Islam Online doesn't even give one the "officials in the Phillipines refuse to comment." What? No follow up? Please. As for Vietnam. Kefka, one of the U.S. military's strengths has been it's ability to learn. Learn from it's mistakes as well as it's successes. As a matter of fact, they learn from other countries, successes and failures. Apparently learned from the USSR's past involvement with Afghanastan. Take a look how that went. Jungle training,like other terrain training,is a work in progress. The American military has taken the lessons learned from WW2, Vietnam, and South America and has and is using them to train it's soldiers. They also have learned to listen to the locals. Hence why they train "with" them. No worries. [ March 24, 2002, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Park City Skins ]

Kefka · March 24, 2002

Yes the US military learned how to get its a$$ kicked. PCS, the war in Afghanistan is hardly over, its just getting started. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> [ March 24, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Kefka ]

PCS · March 24, 2002

Ah Kefka, you try to divert,with an insult as usual, from the original subject. That's okay, I'll play for sec. I can get into the politics of the Vietnam war and it's effect on the battlefield if you like, but that would be to diverting. Now, as for the arse kicking. I suggest you take a look at this site and the numbers it gives, then tell me who got their arses kicked. Yes, I know the end result, but I suggest we debate that some other time, way to many political and friends from both sides to discuss. Now as for the original thread, and the response to it. Any other answers? <a href="http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html" target="_blank">http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html</a> [ March 24, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Park City Skins ]

Glenn X · March 24, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kefka: Yes the US military learned how to get its a$$ kicked. PCS, the war in Afghanistan is hardly over, its just getting started. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Kefka, let me set you straight here, since you seem to be operating under a very curious and inaccurate assumption with regard to the U.S. military and the U.S. people. You keep trying to Vietnamize the conflict in Afghanistan, Kefka. But this is not Vietnam. The reason domestic support for the Vietnam War atrophied was because after a steady diet of news footage of U.S. body bags and bloody American soldiers on the evening news for the better portion of a decade, the American public began to ask itself, "What are we doing in Vietnam? Why are we there? If this fight is so important, why aren't the South Vietnamese fighting it themselves?" However, the American public realizes why we are in Afghanistan and why we are fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Every time we see news footage of Ground Zero and that gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon, we know why we are fighting this fight. Unlike Vietnam, the American public knows that the military action we are now taking is right and just and proper. The American public understands that sacrifices, while deeply tragic, must be made to fight this war. And we are prepared to make those sacrifices, Kefka, because this war cannot and will not be lost. The stakes are simply too great here for that.

Kefka · March 25, 2002

I'm not trying to 'Vietnamize' Afghanistan. This post was about the Philippines and how the US military are "training and lecturing" the Filipino soldiers to capture the Abu Sayyaf. I only replied to PCS post about how the US "learns from it's mistakes and other countries' mistakes" (ie- USSR) , citing Afghanistan. What I said is, the war is hardly over. It is just beginning. This is now turning into guerilla warfare. Something which the US military is not very good at handling from my opinion. Plus what exactly does public opinion have to do with how the US exactly fairs in the Philipines? The US didn't lose the war in Vietnam b/c the American citizens didn't agree w/ what they were doing. They lost because they did not know the area and did were not use to the North's tactics. "..., because this war cannot and will not be lost." You seem so sure about this. What do you have to back this claim? The majority of the public in the US don't exactly agree w/ how the US is handling the situation. [ March 25, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Kefka ]

Glenn X · March 25, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm not trying to 'Vietnamize' Afghanistan. This post was about the Philippines and how the US military are "training and lecturing" the Filipino soldiers to capture the Abu Sayyaf.<hr /></blockquote>Oh, I see. You're trying to Vietnamize the U.S. military's operations in the Phillipines. Glad we cleared that up, Kefka. <blockquote>quote:<hr />the war is hardly over. It is just beginning. This is now turning into guerilla warfare. Something which the US military is not very good at handling from my opinion.<hr /></blockquote>I assume you're now speaking about Afghanistan, correct? Well, all I can say is that I, for one, count myself lucky to have someone as clearly proficient in military matters as yourself here to guide the rest of us through these tricky waters. Col. David Hackworth's got nothing on you, Kef! <blockquote>quote:<hr />Plus what exactly does public opinion have to do with how the US exactly fairs in the Philipines? The US didn't lose the war in Vietnam b/c the American citizens didn't agree w/ what they were doing.<hr /></blockquote>Once again, Kef, all I can do is thank my lucky stars that you are here for us. For all of us! I mean, without your keen analytical skills to keep me on the straight and narrow, I'd be completely lost on this stuff. For example, silly ol' me, I wondered, "Heck, if all those American soldiers in Vietnam had American reporters shoving mics and cameras in their faces all the time, telling them about all those antiwar demonstrations back in the States, that couldn't possibly have had any sort of negative impact on troop morale, could it?" <blockquote>quote:<hr />They lost because they did not know the area and did were not use to the North's tactics.<hr /></blockquote>I don't claim to be an expert on the Vietnam War, by any means. However, what you say here seems to be true. In part, anyway. It seems to me, though, that the other part of it is that the U.S. military lost the Vietnam War because they were hamstrung by a combination of some poor tactical decision-making at the highest levels and a civilian command that was too unwilling to put aside diplomatic concerns and hit the North Vietnamese with the full force of U.S. military might. <blockquote>quote:<hr />You seem so sure about this [the U.S. winning the war on terror]. What do you have to back this claim?<hr /></blockquote>Call it a hunch, Kef. Remember when Bin Laden intimated to his pal (on that videotape seized by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan) that "When people look at two horses in a race, people will naturally favor the stronger horse"? Remember that, Kef? It was one of the few sane, sensible things Bin Laden has ever said. People do like winners. And in case you haven't figured it out yet, Kef, the United States is the strong horse in this race. Don't bet against them, Kef. However, if you do bet against the U.S. here, I'm sure that I can interest you in some lovely beachfront property in Arizona. <blockquote>quote:<hr />The majority of the public in the US don't exactly agree w/ how the US is handling the situation.<hr /></blockquote><img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> Blade, I implore you: Please don't nuke Kefka! Please! This guy is too damn funny to not have around! You crack me up, Kef. I don't know what your day job is, but you oughta consider getting into stand-up comedy. Based upon what you've said here, I'd say that's your true calling, man. The "majority of the [u.S.] public," Kef? Where are you getting your figures from, The Conspiracy Theory Weekly? <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> [ March 25, 2002, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Glenn X ]

Riggo-toni · March 25, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kefka: Yes the US military learned how to get its a$$ kicked. PCS, the war in Afghanistan is hardly over, its just getting started. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Hate to argue semantics here, but I think there is a difference between losing, and getting one's *** kicked. For example, we lost to Tampon Bay a few years ago in the playoffs, but we got our as$es kicked by the Packers last year. Sooo. We lost 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam, and withdrew after killing 2 million North Vietnamese. We definitely lost, but we did not get our asses kicked. Getting one's *** kicked would be more like: Sending the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies out simultaneously against a country the size of New Jersey, and wind up running away like a pack of frightened kittens after just 6 days. Now THAT's an a$s kicking. Or how about having the same armies try the same thing 6 years later this time throwing in a sneak attack, only to have your armies obliterated, the Israeli marching on to Damascus, and the Arab leaders having to phone Moscow to beg Breshnev to threaten Israel with a nuclear strike if they don't return home. There's a total *** -kicking. And how can we forget the big as$ kicking: Warning us we can't take the blood from what will be the "mother of all battles," only to have your soldiers surrendering by the tens of thousands after less that 4 days. You'd need a surgeon to remove a foot planted that deeply up your @ss. That's a foot so far up your @ss, you can get taste the toe jam. The fact is, the US military is vastly superior to what it was in the 70s anyway. Stealth planes, smart bombs, satellites, AWACs, microchips. Whatever adverse economic consequences may or may not have/will resulted from the Reagan buildup, it has left us unequaled militarily, and ready to kick some @ss! "What, your father never cut off anybody's pinky?"

Henry · March 25, 2002

People always seem to get hung up on Vietnam, but what we need to understand was that Vietnam was merely a battle in a very long Cold War. We lost that battle, but we won the war. Yes, the US has been known to roll throught the hedgerows of France or take Iraqi prisoners by the tens of thousands if the situation calls for it. But we are also capable of winning VERY long wars of attrition. The Soviet Union ultimately fell because her economic and industrial resources were unable to maintain a military capable of standing up to the United States. Sure, the Soviets got their people in place in Vietnam, but in the end that didn't matter and they collapsed from the inside. So if Al Queda or whoever else manages to kill an extra ten or so US Soldiers here or there, it will ultimately not matter. When our way of life is on the line, Americans are relentless and quite able to absorb setbacks in order to achieve our goal. Unfortunately, many little dictators in far away places don't read up on history, and don't realize this. They think we are fat and pampered and at the first sign of trouble we will run home and cry for our mothers. The Germans thought that we didn't have the heart and fortitude to break into their Fortress Europe. They were wrong. The Japanese thought religious superiority and willingness to die gave them an advantage we would be unable to overcome. They were wrong. The Soviets thought their way of life made them stronger and more resilient than the weak and sloppy US. They are no longer with us. Quadaffi, Noriega and Saddam Hussein had a lot of fun rattling their sabres because they thought the US didn't want to bother getting it's hands dirty. They were wrong. And if Al Queda thinks that their fanatacism and unconventional tactics will wear the US down into submission, I think they are wrong as well.

redman · March 25, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kefka: Funny, the US are "lecturing and training" the Filipino soldiers in a region similar to Vietnam. And we all know what happened there...<hr /></blockquote>The concern is valid, but not the comparison. Like the Russians in Afghanistan, the problem in Vietnam was that we had a traditional fighting force based upon mass and designed to occupy territory fighting against an enemy guerilla army. Like in Afghanistan in recent months, this appears to be a light infantry hunter-killer mission that is focused on destrying enemy personnel rather than occupying territory. That means that we're much more agile and mobile, and less prone to suffering huge losses from enemy attacks. Most of our casualties will come during our attacks on them just as has been the case in Afghanistan. This is also an interesting situation from a foreign policy standpoint. The Phillipines, who are of course a former U.S. colony, does not want to acknowledge that they have a U.S. fighting force on their soil. However, they desperately need our expertise, equipment and manpower to defeat these rebels. I doubt they will ever acknowledge that we are conducting full-fledged combat operations there, at least until there is undeniable evidence of it in the media. Until then, they'll try to couch situations involving Americans in combat on their soil as Americans defending themselves, or some such things.

Kefka · March 25, 2002

Riggo-toni, yes if you look at it from a materialistic point of view the US IS vastly superior in man power and arsenal compared w/ Al-Qaaeda or the Abu Sayyaff. But the one thing that is different between the two is, the fact that one side so strongly believes in its cause that they are willing to die for it. Can the same be said for the other group? And intrestingly, Henry, you qoute the Japanese in WWII and their willingness to die (ie - kamakazi fighters). It is intresting to note that only after two atomic bombs did they quit fighting. It is also intresting to note that the US IS the only country to actually use atomic bombs on human beings. But the Al-Qaaeda and Abu Sayyaf are not a country you are fighting here. This is a totally different situation. Nice and well written response redman. Well only time will tell how the US Military will fair in the Philipines... [ March 25, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Kefka ]

Henry · March 25, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And intrestingly, Henry, you qoute the Japanese in WWII and their willingness to die (ie - kamakazi fighters). It is intresting to note that only after two atomic bombs did they quit fighting. It is also intresting to note that the US IS the only country to actually use atomic bombs on human beings.<hr /></blockquote>So Kefka, are you saying the US would have lost to the Japanese if they hadn't dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US was winning the war anyway. Dropping the bombs was simply a way to expidite the process. We can argue the morality of using such devices all you want, but that is beside the point, and I'm not about to go chasing around after you and your irrelevent tangets again only to have you bow out when backed into a corner. <blockquote>quote:<hr />But the Al-Qaaeda and Abu Sayyaf are not a country you are fighting here. This is a totally different situation.<hr /></blockquote>Then why are you comparing the situation to Vietnam in the first place? That was YOUR arguement, not mine. I'm simply continuing in the venue of YOUR choosing. Now when the point doesn't suit you, you try to show the irrelevence of it all? How Kefka of you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

Kefka · March 25, 2002

Well, I'm comparing the area of fighting going on in Philipines to Vietnam becuase they are similar. But the US can't drop nukes on the Philipines like they did on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the sense that that the Abu Sayyaf don't control the entire Philipines.

Henry · March 25, 2002

Interesting tactic Kef, taking one point out of five and nitpicking it to death. Is the use of the atomic bomb the extent of your knowledge of American history? Are you familiar with any other events involving the US and Japan that occured between 1941 and 1945? I will not debate Afgan politics with you, but I will be HAPPY to give you a few lessons in American history if necessary. You are exhibiting very little understanding of what we are all about. Your comparison of the US attempting to help the government of an ally root out a band of thugs to a decade-long civil war involving superpowers each bringing their exstensive millitary and economic power to bear thirty years ago is laughable at best. And selectively picking on one of my many examples doesn't change that.

redman · March 25, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kefka: Riggo-toni, yes if you look at it from a materialistic point of view the US IS vastly superior in man power and arsenal compared w/ Al-Qaaeda or the Abu Sayyaff. But the one thing that is different between the two is, the fact that one side so strongly believes in its cause that they are willing to die for it. Can the same be said for the other group? <hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you asking whether there are Americans who are willing to die to ensure that al-Qaeda and it's bretheren are unable to wage terror on the world? I think the last few months have demonstrated that the answer to that question is unequivocally "yes". Please explain. <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kefka: And intrestingly, Henry, you qoute the Japanese in WWII and their willingness to die (ie - kamakazi fighters). It is intresting to note that only after two atomic bombs did they quit fighting. It is also intresting to note that the US IS the only country to actually use atomic bombs on human beings. <hr /></blockquote>I haven't paid close attention to the debates you've had with others around here. I sure hope that you're not comparing the use of Fat Man and Little Boy with something that al-Qaeda has done.

Henry · March 25, 2002

No redman, I apparently hit a little too close to the mark with Kefka when I said "The Japanese thought religious superiority and willingness to die gave them an advantage we would be unable to overcome. They were wrong." He is obviously of the belief that Al Queda's religious 'superiority' and willingness to martyr themselves is an advantage the US won't be able to overcome, which explains his rush to discredit the above statement. We dropped the bomb. According to Kefka THAT's why we beat the Japanese. Not because we had driven them off every island except Japan itself. Not because their navy was decimated. Not because their air force had been reduced to peasants with a few hours of training trying to fly WWI planes into our ships. Not because Tokyo had been reduced to rubble. No sir. If we hadn't dropped The Bomb we would have lost that war. That is what Kefka is claiming. That way he can say we'd have to nuke Al Queda to beat them, which we can't do since they're parasites without a country of their own, or some such nonsense. Unfortunately, Kefka missed my point entirely. The point was that, while he is of the OPINION that the situation in the Phillipenes is similar to the Vietnam War <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> the FACT remains that the US has never lost against a foe who threatens our way of life. That is a FACT, whether Kefka likes it or not.

PCS · March 25, 2002

Ya know Henry, I'm not so sure he missed the point. As you stated before, he takes one of several points and picks it to death. Another form of diversion. I call it a delaying tactic as well, till he could come up with some type of argument. Notice whenever a point is made, and really as Blade said, one of his views challenged with fact, he started diverting. All of us here had to make a concious decision to get it back on topic. I'm not so sure this is completly by accident. That and/or he is so absorbed by a religious/political philosophy, it blinds his objectivity and reason. By the way, I don't see him hiding under the table. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

Henry · March 25, 2002

Heh. I was about to take another swing when the bouncers tossed him out. Probably saved the furniture. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

PCS · March 25, 2002

Bouncers were saving him from the owner. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

Romo · March 26, 2002

Not to start a fight but i would like to point out another time when the US lost. it was a little war called the War of 1812. You yanks couldnt tried but our strong beer was too much for you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" />

PCS · March 26, 2002

Oh now you had to go and do that didn't ya. Sitting around the table, enjoying a round,(I've been known to drink Lebatts. That count? <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> ), and having a peacful conversation. Just relaxing after watching you know who get thrown out of the place, and WHAM! Romo sits to pee starts a Beer war cleverly disguised as an 1812 topic. Ha! I'm on to ya. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Glenn X · March 26, 2002

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Romo sits to pee: i would like to point out another time when the US lost. it was a little war called the War of 1812.<hr /></blockquote>Now Canada is the place where straight-to-vid potboilers are made with the greatest frequency. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Henry · March 26, 2002

Hmmm ... I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up that one. Well, I'd say that was a little different. The US picked a fight with the British, hoping the war with Napolean would keep them distracted while we grabbed a little bit of Canada for ourselves. Unfortunately, by 1814 the British were able to give us their full attention, and we decided it wasn't worth it. I suppose that war was a defeat in the sense that we didn't accomplish our objective, which was more land the easy way, but it's not as if we have a picture of the Queen on the dollar bill either. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> So I still say that when our way of life is threatened, we don't lose. If the Canadians want some credit for helping the British not lose to the US two hundred yeards ago, by all means take it. Or maybe it was just the beer. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> [ March 26, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]

Romo · March 26, 2002

Hey it was all us baby. Britain smitain!! You guys burned down York (now toronto) but we got Washington..lol. The best part about that was is the Battle of New Orleans won by Andrew Jackson after the war was officially over. News traveled slow then and no one seemed to know there had been a peace agreement. FYI it was the Treaty of Ghent, oh ya im a nerd!!

Romo · March 26, 2002

oh and btw PCS us true drunken Canadians dont consider Labatt's a Canadian beer anymore. ok well maybe its just me. Damn Belgians bought them out!! I was surprised how easy it was to find Moosehead in the US. DieHard and I should organize a big Skins party at one of those fine Hooters establishments. <a href="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000240" target="_blank">http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000240</a>

US Green Berets Joining Hunt For Abu Sayyaf

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members