Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, hornbri said:

And that’s fair, they may be the biggest party that can do this. 

But let’s also remember they will do whatever they can to undermine US interests in the process. 

Oh and allow Iran to have nukes in exchange for cheap oil and gas to China. Hell, China may even supply the nukes. Great fucking idea for Israel and the west.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

That's a given. China is going to look to fill the power vacuum we've left by withdrawing a lot our soft power projection assets. 

Back to missile defense, BBC did a decent overview last year of Israel's assets (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20385306)

The full article is worth a read for anyone looking for some good information. But I think this is most helpful:

Range and altitude of Israel's missile systems, including Thaad (October 2024)

US promise to deploy THAAD to Israel was huge. I believe they now have 2 batteries in country (a cool billion dollars per battery). 

Did they at least say thank you and wear a suit to pick them up?

Posted
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Astonishing to see how Iran has screwed the poodle over decades: diverting resources to proxies that now won’t show up, doubling down on isolating themselves regionally, pursuing a rhetorical strategy of insanity.

Its important to remember that neither Iran or Israel has any strategic imperative to be at each other’s throats with three borders between them and no real core interests at stake.  Israel is pragmatic in the extreme outside of Palestine/Lebanon/Syrian border and this has all been driven by Iranian ideological motivators.  Even less than Jew/Zionist hate, its been Iran’s obsession with posing as the real ideological and geopolitical leader within the Islamic world, which is in itself stupidly ideological.  It’s just decades of clerical-military fusion leading to collective brain damage. 

Yeah I guess this is true if you just simply refuse to recognize that the conquest of Iran's natural resources has been the golden goose of American Middle East foreign policy since WW2. No reason to look into exactly why and how Iran's government ended up a theocratic freak show. Persians must just have a bone in their brain that makes them need to be this way.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

how did two F35's get shot down ? 

mind you, israel flies an upgraded f35

They haven't been. At least no reliable sources have confirmed it. It is also unlikely because Israel has been operating its non stealth planes in Iranian airspace. Many of those were loaded out with fairly close range ground attack munitions like JDAMs. If Iran had downed an F35, you'd expect many more reports of downed 4th gen aircraft. We haven't seen that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Well, he was the candidate for VP just a few months ago. Not a totally unfair question.

I mean he lost so

Edited by Sawbonz
Point being why are people here arguing about what was said when his answer really doesn’t matter
Posted
4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, it won't spread beyond Iran/Israel.  Russia can't fuck with Israel and can't even defend Iran.

I would have been worried had any other Muslim nations sided with Iran (outside of Yemen) but they are more than content to see Iran wrecked.  I'm curious what countries are letting Israeli aircraft fly over them.

Lichtenstein will be penalized.

image.thumb.jpeg.e05fe4bdc2734396b4dbd65d2b533316.jpeg

  • Haha 3
Posted
3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

how did two F35's get shot down ? 

mind you, israel flies an upgraded f35

You can take it to the bank that the Iranians would be touting pictures of the wreckage of they had shot down an Adir. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
37 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Expand on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

A year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the British and American governments began pressuring the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran.[3] Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day".[4

The dispute was finalized with the incorporation of a 25-year international Oil Consortium Agreement of 1954, dividing the aforementioned 50% ownership to foreign companies as follows. 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14%; and Compagnie française des pétroles, a French Company, to receive 6%. A year later in 1955 US-government ordered the 5 US-companies to each transfer 1% of their 8%, to several smaller companies because these companies had complained that 'they were left out'.[5]

The agreement further stipulates that the Consortium would take care of 

  • (almost) all production,
  • Refining,
  • transport and
  • (only international) marketing

of Iranian oil for which purposes two Dutch legal entities were to be created and based in The Netherlands:

  1. Iranian Oil Refining Company
  2. Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company.

Basing these companies in Great Britain was considered politically undesirable, as was the initial wish of BP to get 50%. With English companies and a large 50% stake, was thought not to be acceptable to the Iranians. Furthermore, 50% would materially give BP a majority stake because BP had strong connections with the little (6%) French company CFP. Hence only 40% for the former 100% possessor.

The agreement, which was heavily pressured by President Eisenhower, gave American oil companies significant influence over how much petroleum Iran pumped and the price it could sell for.[6] Beginning in 1973, the Shah faced increasing tensions with Western nations after announcing he would not renew the consortium agreement upon its expiration and planned to nationalize Iranian oil in 1979. The Shah, speaking to 5,000 farmers and workers, accused the oil companies of mishandling operations under the 1954 agreement. He said he had ordered the National Iranian Oil Company to start hiring foreign experts to work with Iranians so the company could take over the consortium's duties “either immediately or from 1979.”[5]

Many Iranians accuse Western nations of supporting the overthrow of the Shah due to his failure to renew the consortium agreement in 1979 in what is known as the 1979 Iranian Revolution conspiracy theory.[7] According to the New York Times, the oil companies, through a spokesman, argued that the Shah did not have a legal right to end their contract in 1979, because the Consortium had the right of prolonging it for 15 years.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

A year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the British and American governments began pressuring the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran.[3] Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day".[4

The dispute was finalized with the incorporation of a 25-year international Oil Consortium Agreement of 1954, dividing the aforementioned 50% ownership to foreign companies as follows. 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14%; and Compagnie française des pétroles, a French Company, to receive 6%. A year later in 1955 US-government ordered the 5 US-companies to each transfer 1% of their 8%, to several smaller companies because these companies had complained that 'they were left out'.[5]

The agreement further stipulates that the Consortium would take care of 

  • (almost) all production,
  • Refining,
  • transport and
  • (only international) marketing

of Iranian oil for which purposes two Dutch legal entities were to be created and based in The Netherlands:

  1. Iranian Oil Refining Company
  2. Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company.

Basing these companies in Great Britain was considered politically undesirable, as was the initial wish of BP to get 50%. With English companies and a large 50% stake, was thought not to be acceptable to the Iranians. Furthermore, 50% would materially give BP a majority stake because BP had strong connections with the little (6%) French company CFP. Hence only 40% for the former 100% possessor.

The agreement, which was heavily pressured by President Eisenhower, gave American oil companies significant influence over how much petroleum Iran pumped and the price it could sell for.[6] Beginning in 1973, the Shah faced increasing tensions with Western nations after announcing he would not renew the consortium agreement upon its expiration and planned to nationalize Iranian oil in 1979. The Shah, speaking to 5,000 farmers and workers, accused the oil companies of mishandling operations under the 1954 agreement. He said he had ordered the National Iranian Oil Company to start hiring foreign experts to work with Iranians so the company could take over the consortium's duties “either immediately or from 1979.”[5]

Many Iranians accuse Western nations of supporting the overthrow of the Shah due to his failure to renew the consortium agreement in 1979 in what is known as the 1979 Iranian Revolution conspiracy theory.[7] According to the New York Times, the oil companies, through a spokesman, argued that the Shah did not have a legal right to end their contract in 1979, because the Consortium had the right of prolonging it for 15 years.

 

I should get this but failed:

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

Iran owned 50%, the West owned 50% divided (40% US oil companies, 40% Iran-UK oil companies, 14 percent Dutch, and 6% French). So basically the largest oil companies in the world and France owned 50% and would do all the exploration and development. Overall, it looks to be a WWII remnant. From what I remember from textbooks was that the UK and Russia were both there after WWII, after 6 months the UK started to leave but the Soviets remained. What happened after that?

Posted
28 minutes ago, Chopper said:

So...they didn't bother to plan ahead. 

Thats sarcasm right? It's already been discussed behind closed doors, if a choice has been made is all that's TBD/announced. Israel knew their end game before they set the first missile loose.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Thats sarcasm right? It's already been discussed behind closed doors, if a choice has been made is all that's TBD/announced. Israel knew their end game before they set the first missile loose.

You'd like to think so, but Bibi is playing the dangerous game. He's trying to escalate conflicts to burnish support from his base via nationalism, so that he can retain power and continue to escape criminal prosecution

Edited by Captainant
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

You'd like to think so, but Bibi is playing the same game trump is. He's trying to escalate conflicts to burnish support from his base via nationalism, so that he can retain power and continue to escape criminal prosecution

I agree with your second point, but my instincts, based on history, tell me that one bully makes sure he has the backing of a bigger bully prior to picking a fight. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I agree with your second point, but my instincts, based on history, tell me that one bully makes sure he has the backing of a bigger bully prior to picking a fight. 

Your instincts? You don't seem to understand the level of Netanyahu's personal desperation ... but time will tell. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Your instincts? You don't seem to understand the level of Netanyahu's personal desperation ... but time will tell. 

I've faced a lot of bullies in my work and personal life. My instincts on them tend to be pretty fucking accurate. You seem largely unfamiliar with standard bully tactic protocol. 

If you agree that Israel knew the end game at start, which is all out war and ending the current Iranian regime and nuclear threat, then its poor bully tactics to not have secured backing of the biggest bully prior to throwing the first punch. 

That's exactly what a bully would do unless he's really stupid, which he may we be.

 

Posted

Israel planned - but they lack the capability. Their choices are to get help from the US, use special forces or make the area uninhabitable. The 3rd option may be a no go due to international pressures. The 2nd option will cause a lot of unnecessary deaths and has an uncertain outcome. This makes the first option the best choice. I assume that multiple GBU-28s can't equal a GBU-57 and a GBU-57 can only reach 200ft which is considerably less than the depth of the fortified bunkers. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Israel planned - but they lack the capability. Their choices are to get help from the US, use special forces or make the area uninhabitable. The 3rd option may be a no go due to international pressures. The 2nd option will cause a lot of unnecessary deaths and has an uncertain outcome. This makes the first option the best choice. I assume that multiple GBU-28s can't equal a GBU-57 and a GBU-57 can only reach 200ft which is considerably less than the depth of the fortified bunkers. 

Agreed, I'm certain the plan all along included US assistance. They may not have asked prior to starting, but its wildly idiotic if they just hoped or assumed the US would help once things kicked off. I think the US most likely will and already agreed but its really speculation from all of us at this point. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Agreed, I'm certain the plan all along included US assistance. They may not have asked prior to starting, but its wildly idiotic if they just hoped or assumed the US would help once things kicked off. I think the US most likely will and already agreed but its really speculation from all of us at this point. 

 

The fourth option could be to continue bombing Iran until Iran agrees to give up its centrifuges and destroy its infrastructure. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

The fourth option could be to continue bombing Iran until Iran agrees to give up its centrifuges and destroy its infrastructure. 

It could be, I suppose, but I'm of the opinion that Israel sees what's going on in the global space right now as an opportunity. With Ukraine making progress on Russia and the US now leaning their support that direction indirectly weakens Iran. China while currently "friendly" with Russia  certainly isn't a friend. The US has a bully POTUS who cares about 3 things, power, money and his legacy. There is a potential for our POTUS to help Ukraine defeat Russia AND potentially help Israel take down a caliphate regime on the precipice of Nuclear power. 

I'm happy to be educated by those more knowledgeable than me, but I can't think of a better time in this generational conflict with Iran than right now for Israel to finally take down Iran. It would be a massive feather in the cap of both current leaders in the US and Israel who love that kind of shit and so do their supporters.

Edit - Personally, I would be shocked if Israel is not all in on this round with Iran. I am fully convinced they are at the no quarter given point with this conflict.

I don't know what I don't know, and that's most of it. So I admit my own ignorance and I'm reading the tea leaves at a simplistic level. I'm happy to be educated if there is something I'm missing, its truly why I join these conversations. I enjoy the thoughts and input from others, both those who agree and disagree if they provide sound logic to their reasoning.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

I've faced a lot of bullies in my work and personal life. My instincts on them tend to be pretty fucking accurate. You seem largely unfamiliar with standard bully tactic protocol. 

 

LOL do you think this is a playground fight or something? Seriously what are you on about? 

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Chopper said:

LOL do you think this is a playground fight or something? Seriously what are you on about? 

If you don't think psychological make up of individual leaders plays a part in how they make decisions, we've nothing further to discuss.

Particularly, if you don't understand nor acknowledge that one of Trumps core characteristic is bully tactics. 

Happy to discuss any points or thoughts but I'm not interested in juvenile shit talking. 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954

The Consortium Agreement of 1954 (Persian: قرارداد کنسرسیوم) provided Western oil companies with 50% ownership of Iranian oil production after its ratification in 1954 expiring in 1979.[1] According to the consortium agreement, 40% of Iran's oil shares belonged to 5 American companies, the other 40% belonged to Iran-UK oil companies, 14% belonged to a Dutch oil company, and the remaining 6% belonged to a French oil company.[2] In spite of numerous negotiations and offers, Mohammad Reza Shah refused to extend the Agreement which originally and clearly postulated that the Consortium had the right to prolong it 15 years (3 times 5 years).

A year after the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mossadegh by the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the British and American governments began pressuring the reinstated Shah of Iran into negotiations with Britain over the ownership of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The British cabinet had imposed a series of economic sanctions on Iran that prohibited the export of key commodities to Iran.[3] Britain's boycott had become devastatingly effective, with Iranians "becoming poorer and unhappier by the day".[4

The dispute was finalized with the incorporation of a 25-year international Oil Consortium Agreement of 1954, dividing the aforementioned 50% ownership to foreign companies as follows. 40% to be divided equally (8% each) among the five major American companies; British Petroleum to have a 40% share; Royal Dutch/Shell to have 14%; and Compagnie française des pétroles, a French Company, to receive 6%. A year later in 1955 US-government ordered the 5 US-companies to each transfer 1% of their 8%, to several smaller companies because these companies had complained that 'they were left out'.[5]

The agreement further stipulates that the Consortium would take care of 

  • (almost) all production,
  • Refining,
  • transport and
  • (only international) marketing

of Iranian oil for which purposes two Dutch legal entities were to be created and based in The Netherlands:

  1. Iranian Oil Refining Company
  2. Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company.

Basing these companies in Great Britain was considered politically undesirable, as was the initial wish of BP to get 50%. With English companies and a large 50% stake, was thought not to be acceptable to the Iranians. Furthermore, 50% would materially give BP a majority stake because BP had strong connections with the little (6%) French company CFP. Hence only 40% for the former 100% possessor.

The agreement, which was heavily pressured by President Eisenhower, gave American oil companies significant influence over how much petroleum Iran pumped and the price it could sell for.[6] Beginning in 1973, the Shah faced increasing tensions with Western nations after announcing he would not renew the consortium agreement upon its expiration and planned to nationalize Iranian oil in 1979. The Shah, speaking to 5,000 farmers and workers, accused the oil companies of mishandling operations under the 1954 agreement. He said he had ordered the National Iranian Oil Company to start hiring foreign experts to work with Iranians so the company could take over the consortium's duties “either immediately or from 1979.”[5]

Many Iranians accuse Western nations of supporting the overthrow of the Shah due to his failure to renew the consortium agreement in 1979 in what is known as the 1979 Iranian Revolution conspiracy theory.[7] According to the New York Times, the oil companies, through a spokesman, argued that the Shah did not have a legal right to end their contract in 1979, because the Consortium had the right of prolonging it for 15 years.

 

This is 50+ years ago. The US is the biggest oil producer in the world now, and has good relations with the #2,4,5 producing countries. So the argument is that the US is still trying to take over Iranian oil production? To what end? I think if anything we'd encourage regime change because theocratic Iran has been the number one exporter of worldwide terrorism for fifty years. But hey, wE OvErThRoUgH MoSaDDeGh!!! 

Edited by MagicSoccerSpray
Posted
Just now, BurntEyes said:

If you dont think psychological make of individual leaders plays no part in how they make decisions, we've nothing further to discuss.

Particularly, if you don't understand nor acknowledge that one of Trumps core characteristic is bully tactics. 

Trump? I thought the subject was Israel. Either way, your logic is ridiculously flawed. You've been drinking all day right? NTTAWWT. You should bail from this conversation, which you also should have never started.

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Thats sarcasm right? It's already been discussed behind closed doors, if a choice has been made is all that's TBD/announced. Israel knew their end game before they set the first missile loose.

2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

I've faced a lot of bullies in my work and personal life. My instincts on them tend to be pretty fucking accurate. You seem largely unfamiliar with standard bully tactic protocol. 

If you agree that Israel knew the end game at start, which is all out war and ending the current Iranian regime and nuclear threat, then its poor bully tactics to not have secured backing of the biggest bully prior to throwing the first punch. 

That's exactly what a bully would do unless he's really stupid, which he may we be.

Perhaps we should first discuss the ridiculous number of wildass assumptions you've made - about the situation at-hand, about Israel, and about its relationship with the US government.

What about Israel's recent behavior leads you to believe they've thought through all possible scenarios? What about the current existing US government leads you to believe they want to involve themselves directly into a problem that from all appearances does not seem to be one that can be won from the air -- as was Yemen, where the foolish US involvement lasted all of 2 weeks before the US tucked tail. What about this situation leads you to believe it can be won from the air? What about it leads you to believe there's any winning at all?

Why do you think a bully would have "secured backing of the biggest bully prior to throwing the first punch"?? I mean seriously, what the fuck? Is that what bullys do?  I'm seriously flummoxed about your bully insights, particularly where the bully is all-knowing and understands how the cards are going to be dealt and wraps up all the necessary allies and commitments even before the fight has begun. That's some theory you have. I don't even want to get into what Trump may or may not do because he's seriously unstable and has no idea himself. 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

It could be, I suppose, but I'm of the opinion that Israel sees what's going on in the global space right now as an opportunity. With Ukraine making progress on Russia and the US now leaning their support that direction indirectly weakens Iran. China while currently "friendly" with Russia  certainly isn't a friend. The US has a bully POTUS who cares about 3 things, power, money and his legacy. There is a potential for our POTUS to help Ukraine defeat Russia AND potentially help Israel take down a caliphate regime on the precipice of Nuclear power. 

I'm happy to be educated by those more knowledgeable than me, but I can't think of a better time in this generational conflict with Iran than right now for Israel to finally take down Iran. It would be a massive feather in the cap of both current leaders in the US and Israel who love that kind of shit and so do their supporters.

Edit - Personally, I would be shocked if Israel is not all in on this round with Iran. I am fully convinced they are at the no quarter given point with this conflict.

I don't know what I don't know, and that's most of it. So I admit my own ignorance and I'm reading the tea leaves at a simplistic level. I'm happy to be educated if there is something I'm missing, its truly why I join these conversations. I enjoy the thoughts and input from others, both those who agree and disagree if they provide sound logic to their reasoning.

 

19 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Trump? I thought the subject was Israel. Either way, your logic is ridiculously flawed. You've been drinking all day right? NTTAWWT. You should bail from this conversation, which you also should have never started.

Perhaps we should first discuss the ridiculous number of wildass assumptions you've made - about the situation at-hand, about Israel, and about its relationship with the US government.

What about Israel's recent behavior leads you to believe they've thought through all possible scenarios? What about the current existing US government leads you to believe they want to involve themselves directly into a problem that from all appearances does not seem to be one that can be won from the air -- as was Yemen, where the foolish US involvement lasted all of 2 weeks before the US tucked tail. What about this situation leads you to believe it can be won from the air? What about it leads you to believe there's any winning at all?

Why do you think a bully would have "secured backing of the biggest bully prior to throwing the first punch"?? I mean seriously, what the fuck? Is that what bullys do?  I'm seriously flummoxed about your bully insights, particularly where the bully is all-knowing and understands how the cards are going to be dealt and wraps up all the necessary allies and commitments even before the fight has begun. That's some theory you have. I don't even want to get into what Trump may or may not do because he's seriously unstable and has no idea himself. 

 

If you'd like to have a conversation or discussion I'm happy to do so. Feel free to provide input on specific points. Provide some perspectives on why you disagree with my takes. Not just shit on my takes which I've openly admitted are simplistic. Further, I've also admitted I'm happy to read other perspectives, ideas and information as I admit my own ignorance.

If you want a juvenile shit talking partner, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

 

If you'd like to have a conversation or discussion I'm happy to do so. Feel free to provide input on specific points. Provide some perspectives on why you disagree with my takes. Not just shit on my takes which I've openly admitted are simplistic. Further, I've also admitted I'm happy to read other perspectives, ideas and information as I admit my own ignorance.

If you want a juvenile shit talking partner, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.

Your being a complete dumbshit is noted. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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



×
×
  • Create New...