REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Wikileaks reveals .... what ever the hell you want it to ?

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Friday, January 7, 2011 03:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1186
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, January 6, 2011 3:09 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


First, we have this little gem...


Quote:

October 24, 2010 11:36 AM

WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches

The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction - the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq - appears to be missing.
Wired's Noah Shachtman, who researched the recent trove of documents, wrote:

* "An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime - the Bush administration's most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield.

Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict - and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

Shachtman found that the Iraq war logs contain hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons, but nothing that would indicate a major find of WMD material. He wrote:

"In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. 'These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.'"




And then, there was this.....

Quote:



Wikileaks: WMD program existed in Iraq prior to US invasion

December 7th, 2010 5:30 pm ET

The release by Julian Assange's web site Wikileaks of classified documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, Washington, DC officials and the news media have ignored this information.

One of the WikiLeaks document dumps reveals that as late as 2008, American troops continued to find WMD in the region.

There are numerous mentions of chemical and biological weapons in the WikiLeaks documents, however the U.S. media appear only interested in those portions of the leaked material that highlight actions that are viewed as embarrassing for the U.S. military such as the accusation that U.S. commanders were aware of abuse and "torture" of prisoners by Iraqi soldiers and police officers.

The U.S. Defense Department continues to demand that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange immediately return the stolen military documents in his possession, including recent documents that created another stir when published, according to Elaine Wilson of American Forces Press Service.

The department also wants the whistle-blowing web site to permanently delete all versions of these documents, which contain classified and sensitive information, from its web site, computers and records, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters during a Pentagon briefing.

* WikiLeaks documents don't reveal evidence of a massive weapons program by Saddam Hussein — the Bush administration’s leading rationale for invading Iraq -- or some enormous stockpile of WMD, but do reveal that chemical weapons did vanish from the Iraqi battlefield.

According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.

During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

in 2004, for example, American special forces members secretly purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard which have been used since World War I. Following testing in a military lab, the chemical was then secured and transferred to a secret location.

Meanwhile, also in Iraq, U.S. recon soldiers inspected a suspected “chemical weapons” plant:

“One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interested in trying to get into the bunkers.”

During the a battle in Fallujah, American forces claim they discovered a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical[weapons] cache."

In addition, an armored vehicle came upon "155mm rounds filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”





The difference ? Semantics. While both pieces admit there were WMD related items / sites found, one paints the find as insignificant, because it wasn't the " MASSIVE " stockpile that the media had portrayed HAD to be there in order to make Bush's claims legit. ( US citizens were fed ideas of massive ware houses, like from the Indiana Jones movies. Such cartoonish depictions were never going to be found, yet that's how the media wanted its viewers and readers to imagine it all. )

However, after so many UN inspectors (allegedly ) combed Iraq, up and down, finding next to nothing, how is it we still found all these violations and illegal WMD ?


How ?


Look at what WAS found, not what wasn't found.

Bush was right, after all.






" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 3:22 PM

STORYMARK


Yawn. Keep tellin' yourself that.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 3:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


The proof is right there. Ignore it all you wish.


I copied the articles as written. However, it's clear that something major is going on here. Look

Quote:



An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn't reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime - the Bush administration's most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20020542-503543.html



and now this ...


Quote:

WikiLeaks documents don't reveal evidence of a massive weapons program by Saddam Hussein — the Bush administration’s leading rationale for invading Iraq -- or some enormous stockpile of WMD, but do reveal that chemical weapons did vanish from the Iraqi battlefield http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/wikileaks-wmd-progra
m-existed-iraq-prior-to-us-invasion






I'm not the one editing these folks. One says WMD DID vanish, the other says did NOT vanish.

Find who is editing these stories, and you'll find who is trying to twist the news.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 4:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The editing goes both ways - reading your very own link I find this:

a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there was a call in another part of the Fallujah requesting "explosives experts to dispose of a chemical[weapons] cache."

In addition, an armored vehicle came upon "155mm rounds filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”



One house, one small lab, one cache, one set of 155 mm rounds (quantity unknown, it could have been as few as 2).

Does this sound like the well-funded government-sponsored large-scale manufacturing that Colin Powell presented to the UN? Or more like someone, or several someones, scavenged left-overs?

Your problem, Rap, is that you don't know how to read ALL THE WAY THROUGH, WITH COMPREHENSION.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 4:06 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Yawn. Keep tellin' yourself that.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."




Always with the genius comment....instead of posting on the merits of the Aurapt's thread..throw out your gay/liberal snark. You've got nothing...Sorrymark. Bush was right. Deal with it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 4:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


1kiki..

You're over looking the example i gave, and then offering another apples to oranges example as some sort of tit for tat ?

Why do I even bother ?

And these aren't MY links. Just 2 separate stories I found, from the same docs dump, arriving ( some how ) at completely opposite conclusions. One was clearly tinkering w/ the content of the story by adding ( or omitting ) one word.

I'm honestly asking the simple question - which one?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 5:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Not overlooking - I simply clicked on your links and read all the way to the end. The quote was from the site YOU claimed was SUPPORTIVE of WMDs being found in the field, and SUPPORTIVE of the need to invade Iraq due to their WMD weapons. Real. Physical. Battlefield. Weapons. Stockpiles of them. Just like Bush said.

I was looking for real physical proof - rather than some former nobody's guess as to what they think happened (and which amounts to mere gossip and is about as credible as claims that equipment was buried under a rose bush - and we all know how that went).

What I found was tissue thin, not credible proof of weapons at all.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 5:32 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


1kiki -

Again you're missing the point, and now my patiences is wearing thin.

I did't CLAIM that the articles were this or that, they are what they are. 2 articles, both from the same doc drop, arriving at totally separate conclusions. READ THEIR GORRAM HEADLINES!

I did't make those up.

You did ignore the matter of the " no " WMD on the battle field. Don't deny that. Just comment on it, one way or the other. It's not a matter of debate.

The article claims what proof there was has been taken away. It SAYS that, in the articles. If the secret documents say that, and also gives quotes by one former Iraqi military, then you take it however you like. Either the secret documents are true, or they aren't. Either the Iraqi was spinning tales, or he wasn't. It could go, either way. But these documents weren't the one's released by the military, for propaganda / PR reasons. They were kept hidden. Until now.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 6:12 PM

BYTEMITE


I think it would depend on what the chemical weapons stockpile found WAS. There's a lot of debate about what constitutes a WMD, whether all CBRN qualify, if it's just biological and nuclear, range of dispersal, carry vector, filtration ability. Chemical may or may not automatically mean WMD, depending on who is writing the report.

All I've ever heard about were a couple missiles they found buried without the warheads. It's possible I don't know all of it though. Maybe Saddam sold them off, but if he did, why haven't we seen them used?

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me to hear that wikileaks might produce lots of similar articles with opposite conclusions; they can release whichever one their masters are paying them for. Have I mentioned I still don't trust Assange? He had a movement spring up around him awful fast, particularly Anonymous hacking the banks and whatnot.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 6:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


this is an utterly moronic argument, outside its initial premise, which istrue, you can use wikileaks to say whatever you want

1. We sold Saddam the damn WMDs andyou damn well knowit, whichis the onlyreason the claim wasmade because it's a piss poor reason to go to war.

2. The stockpiles were destroyed in 1990 Because we told him to destroy them, and he thought that appeasing us would stop an attack. You damn well know this also.

3. Saddam could never do all of anything because there were insurgent groups trying to overthrow the country, which had been at war since the day he took it over, so the weapons were everywhere. and you certainly damn well better know that considering your job.

4. Ergo, what is your point? "Bush was right?" On what planet? If you sell some dictator illegal weapons it gives you justification to genocide over two million people and steal their naturak resources because of what you did in support of the dictator that you installed?

the circular nonsense of this orwellian doublespeak boggles the mind and staggers the imagination.

Our past evil is the justification for our present and future evil. where have i heard this before?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 6:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Rap

Perhaps you didn't read what YOU posted?

"The difference ? Semantics. While both pieces admit there were WMD related items / sites found one paints the find as insignificant, because it wasn't the " MASSIVE " stockpile that the media had portrayed HAD to be there in order to make Bush's claims legit."

First you say they both did admit to some weapons found, now you say one claimed none. Which is it? Which one are you going to put your money on? You can't claim both.
--------------------------

"( US citizens were fed ideas of massive ware houses, like from the Indiana Jones movies. Such cartoonish depictions were never going to be found, yet that's how the media ... )"

As was the UN, or perhaps you never saw or read Colin Powell's presentation? Or maybe you forgot statements like these: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." George W. Bush January 28, 2003. Those ideas of massive stockpiles came from BUSH and his administration not from the 'cartoonish' media.
--------------------------

"However, after so many UN inspectors (allegedly ) combed Iraq, up and down, finding next to nothing, how is it we still found all these violations and illegal WMD ?"

All these?

ALL these WHAT exactly?
--------------------------

"Bush was right, after all."

Well, no, he wasn't, his cartoonish ideas were wrong.
--------------------------


But I am getting insight into how your brain, such as it is, clunks along. You think that just b/c someone who was NOT in the loop claimed over the internet that weapons were sent to Syria, it must be true. (I have a very nice bridge here you might like to buy ....) And you think that if small scattered and OLD remnants were found they were what was left behind of a massive MODERN stockpile as Bush claimed.

But, whatever you need to tell yourself to keep your world afloat.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 6:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I give up. You're either being stubborn out of pure denial, or you truly are this stupid.

Again, for the 3rd time, you've ran from my initial point, of which of these articles is distorting the facts.

" But chemical weapons, especially, did ( or did not ) vanish from the Iraqi battlefield."

Either it's this....

The release by Julian Assange's web site Wikileaks of classified documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, Washington, DC officials and the news media have ignored this information.


OR


The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction - the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq - appears to be missing.


I find it pathetic how,even now, so many simply ignore what is being posted, and revert to their Pavlovian and indoctrinated positions, merely at the mention of WMD and Iraq.


Regardless of whether the Iraq war was needed or not, isn't the issue here. I'm pointing out the clear discrepancy in how the info is being reported.


Your irrelevant and childish attempts at insult really show your agenda here. It's not " someone on the inter net, out of the loop ", but specifically what the top secret documents state. You have a problem with that ? Find, shove your quips on how my mind " clunks along ". You're only digging your own grave w/ such diversionary and juvenile tactics.

Don't tell me what I think. I'll TELL you what I think. You worry about trying to figure out what's between your own ears.

And I'm reposting this, because it appears you've missed it the first time, when you weren't reading everything to the end, as you claim.

Quote:


According to the latest WikiLeaks document "dump," Saddam’s toxic arsenal, significantly reduced after the Gulf War, remained intact. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict and may have brewed up their own deadly agents, according to the WikiLeaks web site.

During that time, former Iraqi General Georges Sada, Saddam's top commander, detailed the transfers of Iraq's WMD. "There [were] weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Gen. Sada's comments came just a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."





" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 6:53 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Sada was not an active officer or in the loop at the time of Bush's Iraq invasion, therefore, he was not in a position to know anything about whether or not WMDs were sent to Syria. Claiming him as some type of 'expert' is seriously misleading. That's why I referred to him as an out of the loop nobody. His claims, as such, amounted to nothing more than gossip (and I'm guessing some self-important puffery) something I also pointed out.

WIKI
(Sada) officially retired in 1986 as a 2 star officer, but was called back to active service for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. According to his autobiography, he was briefly imprisoned in 1991 for refusing to execute POWs. He was told that Saddam didn't want him harmed but that he never wanted to see him again either.

After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Sada sided with the US-led government, and served as spokesman for the interim leader Iyad Allawi, and was appointed as National Security Advisor.


As for this: "The release by Julian Assange's web site Wikileaks of classified documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins ..." you seem to not understand that this is NOT a series of quotes from Wikileaks - it is, in fact, someone's EDITORIAL of what they WANT you to think was in Wikileaks. When looking further through YOUR supportive links - for actual quotes or hard numbers - what I found was specifics about one house, one lab, one cache, and one (un-numbered) set of 155 mm rounds.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

you seem to not understand that this is NOT a series of quotes from Wikileaks - it is, in fact, someone's EDITORIAL of what they WANT you to think was in Wikileaks. .


Gee, Sherlock, isn't that what I've been saying, ALL ALONG ?

Quote:

When looking further through YOUR supportive links - for actual quotes or hard numbers - what I found was specifics about one house, one lab, one cache, and one (un-numbered) set of 155 mm rounds.


Yep. That's what story says. As an example. Doesn't say that's the sum total of all that was found, does it ? Nope. Does it directly quote the entire body of information on those labs, from the docs themselves?

Gee Sherlock, I guess it doesn't. Huh !!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, here are a few things you have yet to clear up:

You claim that according to Wikileaks, Bush was right. You also claim that any Wikileaks claims are bogus 'editorial evidence'. Which is it?

You claim that both sources claimed some weapons were found, then you claim that one source said they weren't. Which is it?

You use Sada's claims as a credible source re weapons being moved to Syria, but he clearly was not in a position to know. So, is he a credible source? He WAS in Wikileaks after all.

Your post a link, which you say supports the idea that chemical weapons DID vanish. You exhort us to look at what WAS found. But when it's pointed out that they were old, scanty and scattered - did I mention old? - you want us to imagine what wasn't found. Which are you advocating?


No hurry, I don't intend to waste too much more time on you. But it is interesting watching the notions snake and wriggle out of your brain.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 8:10 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I claim Bush is right. Yes.

However, I also point out that there are 2 different versions of what is contained in the Wikileaks release. That's as plain as day, yet you keep trying to make this a ME specific issue. It isn't.

Vanished from the battlefield. I clearly posted that, more than once.

A member of the Iraqi military, as high up as Sada was, for that long, is credible and " in the loop ". Yes.

No, I specifically said what WAS found. Try reading, once in a while.

( Look at what WAS found, not what wasn't found. )<-- my exact words.

And there you have it. For about the 5th time in this thread, you've completely ignored the point. Congrats. I too, am done w/ you.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 6, 2011 9:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... keep spinnin', boy. It amuses me.

But seriously - do you not go back and try to get your own story right, at least in your head? Because you can't seem to follow a straight thought across even one logical link. Are you not at all troubled by the fragile tether you have to reality? Is it that important to have 'clever' seeming posts so you can feel like you've 'won' - no matter how much logic and fact (and sanity) you have to trash to get there?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 7, 2011 3:35 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Your inability to follow anything but the most simplistic of concepts is what has you flummoxed here, 1Kiki.

However, this IS that simplistic, and you still can't follow along.

You're just too programmed by this WMD issue to even attempt any rational , logical discussion.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 7, 2024 07:23 - 4615 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 7, 2024 06:37 - 924 posts
Can social media censor content? Google does it. So does FB and Twitter
Thu, November 7, 2024 06:07 - 115 posts
Trump wins 2024. Republicans control Senate.
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:51 - 15 posts
Bolton is out, finally!
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:35 - 28 posts
What I would do if I were President
Thu, November 7, 2024 05:03 - 29 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 7, 2024 03:58 - 7427 posts
Countdown Clock, Trump Going to Jail
Thu, November 7, 2024 02:21 - 1481 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 6, 2024 23:42 - 4681 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 23:09 - 645 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:08 - 36 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:59 - 43 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL