If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   2,000   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 52
    More: Sad, Afghan National Security Forces, Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force, Wardak provinces, soldier killed, I'm Mad  
•       •       •

26965 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2012 at 8:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-30 08:26:18 AM
5 votes:
I must have missed the countdown like the media did for Bush in Iraq. Liberal bias in its most obvious form.
2012-09-30 09:51:59 AM
4 votes:

Kit Fister: How do you defeat an enemy that is fanatical and refuses to understand reason.


I don't know. We could ask the rest of the world how they deal with America.
2012-09-30 09:19:37 AM
3 votes:
their's is not to wonder why
their's is but to do and die.

i still don't understand why people mourn the death of people who signed up to die, and ignore the deaths of the million people who got bombed / shot / 'sploded / raped n killed / torn limb from limb at the hand of the hired killers.
2012-09-30 08:40:29 AM
3 votes:

Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.


Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.
2012-09-30 08:21:02 AM
3 votes:
Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.
2012-09-30 04:14:31 AM
3 votes:
After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.
2012-09-30 03:36:29 AM
3 votes:
And even when we "leave" in 2014, we won't actually be gone. :(

/we've always been at war with Eastasia
2012-09-30 10:54:37 AM
2 votes:

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 504x303]

[i.imgur.com image 504x351]

Ah, memories...


www.greatdreams.com

I'll bite
2012-09-30 09:29:49 AM
2 votes:

Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)


If I had my way, I'd force all of the people that voted for this crap ( some D's, lots of R's) and most of the talking heads ( Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage) to go over there and fight. Granted, it would be like the Children's Crusade back in the 13th century, but it would teach us to stay far away from that part of the world.
2012-09-30 09:09:31 AM
2 votes:

Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)


This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.
2012-09-30 08:52:45 AM
2 votes:

MFAWG: Kit Fister: Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.

I saw a story last week where some dumbass GOPPER Congressman was hanging on to this talking point for dear life, right up until he got a letter from an actual troop in the field.


Hey, so far they blew up the wtc twice. Not so much anything else since we started fighting them on their own soil. Only terrorists we've dealt with here are some asian dude at virginia tech and two mentally unstable white guys in az and co
2012-09-30 08:47:51 AM
2 votes:

pippi longstocking: Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.


When your enemy hides among civilians, uses them as shields, and has no compunction about killing them with their car bombs and ieds and suicide bombers...what are you supposed to do? How is it, again, we're responsible for the enemy's tactics?
2012-09-30 08:41:26 AM
2 votes:

Frederick: doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.


The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.

Would you prefer malls being shot up, buildings blowing up, etc here? Personally, I'd rather they suffered the consequences of their actions in their own back yard.
2012-09-30 08:07:24 AM
2 votes:

doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...


Yes, because that's what would be happening in the US if we didn't occupy Afganistan.

o_O
2012-10-01 10:45:19 AM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: \
The problem with that is we have to have some way of keeping them engaged in their own lands, which they are not content to do right now. Instead, they choose to leak out of their own lands and come fight here, or in France, or the UK, or any number of other places. That's unacceptable. If they were content to kill each other in their own region, I'd agree with you.


I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement coming from an american.

s7.postimage.org
2012-09-30 01:42:55 PM
1 votes:

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Not pissed them off to the point where they feel their only option is to get other people to fly planes into buildings.
2012-09-30 01:41:28 PM
1 votes:
Okay, now what's the toll for civilian casualties by American fire out there?
2012-09-30 12:27:14 PM
1 votes:

kim jong-un: 06Wahoo: Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)

This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.

Personally, I think the issue is that spending lives and money on an opponent that isn't really a threat is an issue.

Besides, WWIII is not something I'm worried about winning. If WWIII occurs, we (as in everyone) is so completely farked that I think we could declare mankind to have failed.


It has already begun to occur (IMO). It's inevitable as the continuation of WWII, in the same way that was a continuation of WWI. We have always been at war, in a loose sense.
2012-09-30 11:57:00 AM
1 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**

Yep.


It's truly not all that complex. You treat people who attempt to do us harm as the criminals they are. You get your shiat together so that a bunch of dudes (saudi, as has been been mentioned) who were living within miles of the NSA can't fly under the radar, as it were. You react proportionally to the threat. You don't bankrupt the country and sell out our core values and the rule of law because of the scawy bearded guys.

What is YOUR solution to elements in Yemen, Saudi, Pakistan (which we have actually payed to kill us to make this entire debacle possible), who would do us harm? Should we be ineffectively trying to run those countries too?
2012-09-30 11:55:40 AM
1 votes:
In Afghanistan now. Launching a half dozen ICBMs at this place would only improve it. The people don't want to fix their own country. I used to be one of those people that said we should stay until it's done, now... Let's get the FARK out of here. Nothing here but a bunch of backwards people who don't want westernized things. If China want the minerals from the mountains so bad let them come in here and convert the place to a communist country it would work better for everyone.
2012-09-30 11:45:01 AM
1 votes:

stirfrybry: I must have missed the countdown like the media did for Bush in Iraq. Liberal bias in its most obvious form.

F*ck you....

wedun:
crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.

F*ck you....


Frederick:
doglover: Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive

Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...

That is based in some kind of reality with you? Good grief!!

There are so many logical problems with your absurd scenario I cant imagine how you even presented it.

and finally, F*ck you....

Spoken like a true neocon chickenhawk....now STFU and go back to looking for the 'birth certificate'...

2012-09-30 10:17:03 AM
1 votes:

nmemkha: 2,000 American lives ...

What did we win? How many do we need save up to get another Pocket Dictator?


Pocket Dictators are so 20th Century. The new paradigm is "keep the heathens slaughtering each other so that they won't have time to turn their guns on us".

Get with the program, man.
2012-09-30 10:10:53 AM
1 votes:

doglover: After 10 years? That's nearly 0 losses each day. Not bad odds when you're in a hostile foreign country engaging in a war and occupying territory.


Stupidest comment ever. I'll assume there's sarcasm at play here.
2012-09-30 10:08:02 AM
1 votes:

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


I'm not really "the opposition" but that's a strange question. What's wrong with the answer, "I would've told them their mothers were hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries?"


GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.


"My first order as Commander in Chief will be to end the war in Iraq and refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and our broader security interests. ... the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ..." Link 

Obama promised to put more troops into Afghanistan so as to WIN the war there, but it would be completely disingenuous to suggest that he promised to "end" or "get us out of" Afghanistan in the same sense as withdrawing from Iraq.
2012-09-30 10:04:19 AM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: This is going to be a squirrelly one. If we declare "Victory" and pull out, what's to stop them from coming back in and retaliating against us because of our "hubris"? If we declare defeat and pull out, they retaliate and think it open season. If we stay there, we endure their anger and their continued violence.


It must suck to be constantly scared shiatless all the time.
2012-09-30 10:04:00 AM
1 votes:

GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.


GOP obstructionism, how does that work?
2012-09-30 09:40:00 AM
1 votes:

wedun: crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.


I'm liberal, and I support the troops 100%.
It's the government sending them there that I'm getting pissed at.
Let's declare victory and bring them all home NOW.
2012-09-30 09:23:11 AM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Actually, every supermax prison that wanted to house the prisoners, or was willing to, got shouted down by the NIMBYs near said prisons who were deathly afraid that they might become targets.


i560.photobucket.com

So, when you wind up with no place to put the inmates, what do you do?

You tell the cowards that if you don't get to put the suspects (have any been found guilty yet? in an actual trial?) in the local supermax, you'll have to let them go home. Maybe that'll change some minds.
2012-09-30 09:14:55 AM
1 votes:
Not a peep from the non-biased, mainstream media. What would the reaction be if it were George Bush or Mitt Romney in the White House? What would be the reaction if George Bush had released a prisoner from Gitmo and they were involved in a terrorist attack?

Drink the Kool-Aid...
2012-09-30 09:13:17 AM
1 votes:

06Wahoo: Therion: 2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)

This is the kind of view that concerns me. Are we going to have the stomach to fight a real war? If WWIII arrives, are we going to hide in our shells when we reach a couple thousand deaths within a couple months rather than more than a decade? Certainly, I don't want to see our country lose any troops and the 2,000 who gave their lives had them cut far too short, but war is not going anywhere, whether we are willing to take part or not.

You may be only partially serious in what you are saying, but too many people seem to fully believe this. I truly fear for the future of this country.


We will if there is a clearly articulated strategical goal. Hanging around for ever shifting definitions of 'Success' isn't cutting it.
2012-09-30 09:09:16 AM
1 votes:

Kyle Butler: Would not fill up one panel on the Vietnam memorial


Well then, at least we're not going backwards. Too bad we're not moving forward, either.
2012-09-30 09:08:58 AM
1 votes:

Bungles: "Enemy combatant" has a specific meaning - a member of the armed forces that a country is at war with - and it's only in the last 10 years that the Bush administration used it to mean "anyone, anywhere in the world, not of US citizenship, who we wish to interrogate".


That's why called it the war on terror, which makes about as much sense as the war on the color blue. But it means they can treat anyone like a POW.
2012-09-30 08:53:18 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.




Originally it less that Mooslimms have secret super powers (although that's what the main defense has apparently morphed into over 10 years), but rather that if it's not on US soil, slicing off nipples and making inmates urinate on each other apparently isn't torture and maltreatment..

Oh, and apparently habeas corpus is some sort of actual physical field that only covers the continental US.

KEEP THE MOOSLIMMS OUT OF THE HABEAS CORPUS FIELD! THEY WILL ESCAPE!
2012-09-30 08:53:07 AM
1 votes:
Political insight set aside.

Thank you young men and women. While many do not agree with this war, you have volunteered to take part in it.

Thank you
2012-09-30 08:51:30 AM
1 votes:
1973 just called. It said to tell you that wars of occupation suck, and cannot be won.
Kthnxby.
2012-09-30 08:50:42 AM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: The idea behind it is to prevent the violence of insurgents/terrorists/radical fanatics from coming here. We can either make war with them there, or we can fight the battles here, and if we weren't engaging them, they would find ways to attack us here.


How do you know this? Oh, you don't.

GORDON: He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.


Sigh.

Obama was always in favor of Afghanistan. As for Gitmo, congress shot down funding to close it. This is all well documented.
2012-09-30 08:50:15 AM
1 votes:

LordJiro: GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.

Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.


Actually, every supermax prison that wanted to house the prisoners, or was willing to, got shouted down by the NIMBYs near said prisons who were deathly afraid that they might become targets.

So, when you wind up with no place to put the inmates, what do you do?
2012-09-30 08:48:48 AM
1 votes:

farkeruk: I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**


Considering that we've only attacked one out of the 3 'Axes of Evil', and hold hands and buss cheeks with the country that actually funded and organized 9/11, I'd call it a wash.
2012-09-30 08:46:26 AM
1 votes:

GORDON: Bungles: GORDON: He has only had 4 years to get us out. He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


Have you confused Afghanistan with Iraq?

/easy to do, the neo-cons did.

Yeah, the "but the terrorists and mastermind were all from Saudi Arabia" jab only applies when talking about Bush. Of course Afghanistan was not one of the "illegal wars" he promised to end. He meant iraq and some other illegal war.

He had 4 years to end the wars and shut down Guantanamo. Iraq ended on Bush's timetable, we're still in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo is out of the news but still chugging along as full as ever. To report on it is bad for him, so it doesn't get reported.

But I will vote for that lying piece of shiat again because hey, the other guy is a mormon and I am hugely biased against those people.


Obama CAMPAIGNED on focusing on Afghanistan. And his opponents were very vocally against ending Iraq on Bush's timetable; remember, they also fought tooth and nail to prevent Bush's handouts tax cuts for the rich from ending on schedule.

As for Guantanamo, Obama signed an executive order to close the place, but Congress refused to pay for it, because apparently Muslims have terrorist superpowers that will allow them to break out of American prisons. I guess Cuban soil is like Muslim kryptonite.
2012-09-30 08:43:47 AM
1 votes:
Pff that's probably the number of civilians they kill a day.
2012-09-30 08:41:04 AM
1 votes:
Would not fill up one panel on the Vietnam memorial
2012-09-30 08:38:03 AM
1 votes:
Cue the people whose political smugness outweighs their human decency.

/Much respect to those who gave their lives for it.
2012-09-30 08:38:00 AM
1 votes:

MFAWG: Remember when pointing out casualty figures was a form of treason? Good times!


Maybe that's why the link was to the BBC and not CNN.
2012-09-30 08:35:01 AM
1 votes:

GORDON: He promised to get us out when he ran.

Obama 2012.


He promised a lot more that he has broken when he ran
2012-09-30 08:34:13 AM
1 votes:
Jesus, did this thread hit potato fast...
2012-09-30 08:33:14 AM
1 votes:
I'd still like to know what the opposition's alternative was.

My neighbour was against it and I was like "so, what would you have done about the Taliban?". "Bush and Blair are war criminals" "No, what would YOU have done about the Taliban?" **crickets**
2012-09-30 08:32:47 AM
1 votes:
Sad, yes.

But wow... from 2001?

Had this been 30-40 years ago that number would be x20 + in an 11 yr period.
2012-09-30 08:30:42 AM
1 votes:

wedun: crab66: Regardless of the politics. Living or dead.


Thank you for your service.

I'm glad that you support the troops. Some people, like the liberals, don't support the troops, you can tell because they were opposed to defendind america in 2003. They also made us lose in Iraq.


Weak.
2012-09-30 08:22:48 AM
1 votes:

Mugato: Yes, because that's what would be happening in the US if we didn't occupy Afganistan.


Obviously.

Have you ever seen the Canadians? They're jealous of our quality beer, classy TV celebrities, and our superior national sport of football. They'd be over that border in a year if we didn't pound some foreign place's capitol into the ground every few years.
2012-09-30 07:49:37 AM
1 votes:
2,000? What's the big deal?
More men died in the first thirty seconds at Antietam! It's a small price to pay to bring Democracy to the heathen wogs over there. USA! USA! USA!

( pukes)
2012-09-30 04:39:27 AM
1 votes:

Frederick: I still dont really understand this directive


Let's accidentally drop a 2000 lb bomb on your house while you're at work because some insurgents were hiding in the one next to it and we hit kinda in the middle.

When you come home to the smoking ruin that was your house and all your possessions have been burned or looted and anyone who you loved in the home is now gone and you personally have to watch and avoid IEDs and occasionally traffic is stopped for gun battles...
2012-09-30 04:17:28 AM
1 votes:
Fighting them over there, so we dont have to fight them here.

\I still dont really understand this directive
 
Displayed 52 of 52 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report